web analytics
July 4, 2015 / 17 Tammuz, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

State Dept. Admits Even Obama Is not ‘Infallible’

Friday, February 27th, 2015

U.S. State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters Thursday that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is not infallible and therefore may be wrong in opposing a potential “bad” deal with Iran.

Pressed by Associated Press reporter Matt Lee if the pope and President Barack Obama also are not infallible, she admitted everyone is.

The questioning was in response to Secretary John Kerry’s testimony at Congress where he questioned Netanyahu’s judgment for supporting the 2003 war in Iraq.

Lee asked, “I’m wondering if you can explain a bit more about what he[Kerry] meant since there were a lot of people, including himself at one point, who were supporters of that war, and why this makes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s judgment suspect and does not make anyone else’s judgment suspect….. I’m sure that there may be other things that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been wrong about.”

Psaki performed some fancy verbal acrobatics and said that Kerry’s”point was about where we are with the Iran negotiations, and that we have to look at all of the options, look at all of the information that’s available, to – and have an open mind about how to approach this. And that’s what he’s asking from the prime minister.”

When Psaki agreed with Lee that “no one is infallible,” not even the pope or the president, he persisted:

if no one is infallible, how is it possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu here in his opposition to a potential Iran deal is wrong and you guys are all right?….

It’s the approach that the prime minister has an issue with, not the goal that you both – that I think he would say that you share with him. Psaki said the Obama administration does not agree that its approach to the Iranian nuclear threat is the problem. She adds that Netanyahu is wrong because he is part of an “effort to prejudge an outcome when the details are not yet known.”

But enough of the details are known.

There is a scary parallel between the “negotiations” with Iran and the U.S.-led negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Technically, details of a final agreement were not known, but the Palestinian Authority gradually ruled out compromise on virtually all issues, leaving as “details” its demands that were evolving into a de facto final agreement.

Netanyahu finally drew the line after his own administrations, as well as those under Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, caved in time after time.

Instead of a “bad deal, there was no deal, forcing the Palestinian Authority to go to the United Nations to try to force an agreement on Israel and prove to the world that Ramallah really was not interested in negotiations.

Kerry and Obama failed in the “peace process.” They blamed Mahmoud Abbas, no less than Netanyahu, for the failure.

They proved that they, even more than Netanyahu, are not infallible.

Poll: One out of Three Americans Thinks Obama Does not Love America

Thursday, February 26th, 2015

Only 47 percent of American adults think that President Barack Obama loves the United States, and 35 percent said he does not, according to a new poll published by Huffington Post in coordination with the British-based YouGov poll.

This was not a popularity poll. It was a survey concerning the leader of the country’s love for the nation he is supposed to be leading. It would be shocking if even 10 percent of American citizens thought their president does not love the United States.

The poll showed extremely sharp differences of opinion along party lines, with 85 percent of Democrats not questioning Obama’s love for America, while only 11 percent of Republicans do no question it.

The survey also revealed that most Americans – 52 percent – have an unfavorable view of President Obama.

The poll was carried out one week after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s said a dinner in New York:

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.

He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up, and I was brought up through love of this country.

He later clarified that he was not questioning Obama’s patriotism and wrote in The Wall Street Journal this week, “I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart. Irrespective of what a president may think or feel, his inability or disinclination to emphasize what is right with America can hamstring our success as a nation.

He told Fox News, “I’m not questioning his patriotism — he’s a patriot, I’m sure. What I’m saying is, in his rhetoric, I very rarely hear him say the things I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say about all the things he loves about America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents…”

“It sounds like he’s more of a critic than he is a supporter. You can be a patriotic American and be a critic, but then you’re not expressing that kind of love that we’re used to from a president.”

The former mayor explained that Obama’s anxiousness to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear development indicates that he does not love and understand Western civilization.

Obama Asks Congress to Declare War on Islamic State

Wednesday, February 11th, 2015

President Barack Obama has asked Congress for authorization to declare war on Islamic State with a limit of three years but no limit on geographical boundaries.

It took him more than four months since the Islamic State executed American hostage James Foley to ask for an official declaration of war.

If Congress approves the request, it will be the first time the United States goes to war against an organization and not a country.

The proposed authorization for military force against the Islamic State would:

Target the Islamic State and associated persons or forces, defined as those fighting with the Islamic State “in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;”

Provide no geographic limits on the battle;

Limit ground troops by banning “enduring offensive ground combat operations;” and

Expire after three years unless renewed by Congress.

The authorization also would do away with the Congressional approval from 2002 for military force in Iraq. The president said in his letter to Congress that he hopes to be able to repeal the same authorization on which he has been relying for military operations force against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

President Obama composed his letter with explanations, each one beginning with “whereas,” to define the ISIS as an enemy threat to the United States.

He declared that the Islamic State, which he referred to as ISIL for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , “poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners.”

He pointed out that the Islamic State, more commonly known as ISIS, “holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so” and that its leaders have stated intentions to attack the United States.

His fourth “whereas” appeared to be designed to further his premise that ISIS is not a part of Islam. He stated:

Whereas ISIL has committed despicable acts of violence and mass executions against Muslims, regardless of sect, who do not subscribe to ISIL’s depraved, violent, and oppressive ideology;

Whereas ISIL has threatened genocide and committed vicious acts of violence against religious and ethnic minority groups, including Iraqi Christian, Yezidi, and Turkmen populations;

President Obama seems to be afraid that Muslim countries will think that he wants to wage war against radical Islam, which would get him in a lot of trouble in certain Middle East countries that do not behead people willy-nilly but also do not tolerate anyone who does not obey Islamic law.

His carefully crafted letter, having stated that the ISIS is supposedly anti-Muslim, focused on the Islamic State’s “horrific acts of violence” that included “the deaths of [four] innocent United States citizens.”

Obama then brought the international community under the umbrella of a global alliance and noted the announcement last September at a NATO Summit “that ISIL poses a serious threat and should be countered by a broad international coalition.”

Congress is not totally happy with the idea, and Obama tried to make it easier to obtain authorization by writing:

The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

The obvious problem with the language is the word “enduring,” something Congressmen will have to thrash out in discussions on the request for war on ISIS.

President Obama put the ball in Congress’ court and implied it is will bear the price if it does not declare war on ISIS.

He wrote.

If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.

Bibi Says: ‘I am Going to Speak to Congress About the Bad Offer Made to Iran’

Tuesday, February 10th, 2015

On Tuesday, Feb. 10, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu released a statement confirming his decision to go to Washington, D.C. next month and to speak in the U.S. Congress about the dangers of the offer the U.S. and its partners has made to Iran.

The prime minister addressed the issue which has been dividing the leadership of the U.S. and Israel: the acceptance by Netanyahu of an invitation to speak before a joint session of Congress next month. It is something this U.S. administration strongly opposes.

Netanyahu acknowledged the very close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, one that has remained strong despite many strong disagreements between leaders in the two countries throughout that relationship. Examples of those disagreements included ones between Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and the U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, Levi Eshkol’s decision at the start of the Six Day War, Menachem Begin’s decision to bomb Iraq’s Osirik nuclear reactor, and Prime Minister Sharon’s Operation Defensive Shield.

The Prime Minister turned next to the heart of the current disagreement. It is not over whether Netanyahu should speak before a joint session of Congress, or about how or even when the invitation was extended.

The fundamental disagreement is over the offer Netanyahu said the P5+1, including the U.S., ‘has made‘ to Iran. Note: not may make, not is thinking of making, but has made. According to Netanyahu, the offer has already been extended, and it is an offer, Netanyahu said, that “threatens Israel’s survival.”

Under this deal, Netanyahu stated, Iran will be able “to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs.”

Netanyahu repeated this is not a personal disagreement between himself and President Obama. “I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields,” he said, and he is not going to Washington because he seeks “a confrontation with the President.”

But Netanyahu is going to Washington, he said, “because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country,” and he will speak to Congress before the March 24th political framework deadline, “because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran.”

Obama Says He Has Watched ‘Terrible Stuff’ in ISIS Beheading Videos

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

President Barack Obama says he has watched “the terrible stuff that’s happening” in Islamic State (ISIS) videos showing beheading of its hostages.

For a great orator, it is strange that he couldn’t come up with a term a bit more meaningful than “terrible stuff.”

In an interview conducted on Sunday and to be aired today on NBC’s Today Show, President Obama added that his administration is doing everything possible to free an unnamed 26-year-old American, a woman who is an aid worker abducted in Syria last year.

Presumably, the United State is practicing what it preaches and is not preparing to pay millions of dollars in ransom to fund the Islamic State to save a hostage’s life, an act that only encourages the terrorist organization to kidnap more victims.

“We are deploying all the assets that we can, working with all the coalition allies that we can, to identify her location,” he said.  .

The president said officials are in touch with the American woman’s family, and he called the situation “heartbreaking.”

“I think it’s fair to say that, anything related to these terrorist actions, I take a look at,” he told The Today Show, referring to the videos of beheadings. “I think it would affect anybody who has an ounce of humanity. And it’s part of the reason why I think we’ve been so successful in organizing such a broad-based coalition.”

The ISIS released a video last week that showed a masked terrorists threatening to behead President Obama inside the White House and turn the United States into a “Muslim Province.”

 

‘No Opportunity’ in Obama’s Schedule for Hosting President Rivlin

Sunday, January 25th, 2015

President Barack Obama’s aides have turned down a request by Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to meet him next week, when Rivlin addressed the United Nations during its commemoration of the Holocaust next Tuesday .

“Over the past few days, there has been contact between the relevant parties in Israel and the US, discussing the possibility of a meeting between President Obama and President Rivlin during his visit to New York,” President Rivlin’s spokesman Jason Pearlman said Sunday night.

He added:

At this stage, it has been agreed not to hold a meeting during his visit, due to the schedule constraints of both leaders, and that a meeting would be scheduled at a later date.

When asked if the White House’s rejection of a visit was linked to its refusal to meet with visiting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu next month because of the upcoming Knesset elections, Pearlman asked The Jewish Press, “Have you ever had to organize a presidential visit?” He noted the complexities in adjusting schedules and making time for a meeting on short notice.

A cynic could say that President Obama does not want to give Israel any attention before the elections, even though the office of the Israeli president officially is not a political position.

Rivlin was a senior Likud Knesset leader and Knesset Speaker until he was elected last year to succeed Shimon Peres, who turned the office into a platform for his political views.

Rivlin  is known to be far from a close friend of Netanyahu but he also has no taste for the increasingly leftist Labor-Livni party, the Likud’s main challenger.

A more positive view of the White House rejection would take Pearlman’s explanation as the truth, which it very well could be.

It will pay to look at Obama’s public schedule next week and see how many times he is on the golf course during Rivlin’s five-day visit.

US Re-Defines ‘Unilateral’ to Justify PA Burying the Oslo Accords

Wednesday, December 17th, 2014

The United States stated on Wednesday that not every resolution the Palestinian Authority presents to the United Nations Security Council is necessarily a ”unilateral” step, a term used in the Oslo Accords that prohibits Israel and the Palestinian Authority from taking steps that would preclude negotiations.

Article XXXI of the Oslo 2 Accords, signed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel, states:

Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

This article prohibits unilateral measures which would alter the legal status of the areas, such as annexation or declaration of statehood.

Every time the Palestinian Authority turns to the United Nations, it is a unilateral action that violates the Oslo Accords. In truth, it doesn’t matter because there have been enough other gross violations that render it null and void.

Examples are, unilaterally halting security cooperation with Israel, exceeding the overall limit on the number of Palestinian “police,” failure to coordinate movement of Palestinian police, detention of Israeli citizens without notifying Israel, and failure to enforce restrictions on visitors’ permits

The United States has consistently winked its eye at the violations, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki revealed that the Obama administration has turned around former policy by specifically putting a stamp of approval on the Palestinian Authority’s proposing a resolution to the U.N. Security Council on its future status if it “does not prejudge the outcome of the negotiations.”

How can she do such a thing? It’s simple. You just re-define the word “unilateral.”

Here is what deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf had to say last May, referring to Palestinian Authority threats to approach to the United Nations when her boss’s Peace Talks Follies fell apart:

We don’t think either side should do anything to complicate efforts right now to build the trust necessary to resume negotiations. No one should take any steps that undermine trust, including unilateral.

That was six months ago.

Psaki told reporters Tuesday, “UN Security Council resolution is not, in our view, a unilateral measure by either one of the parties. There are the – obviously, the details are what matter. And so our objection here, and our objection historically has been to measures that would prejudge the outcome of the negotiations. If you had a Security Council resolution from the Palestinians, which we’ve had in the past, that sought to have them recognized as a member of the – of – as a member state, that’s a unilateral action, as you all know. But if you were to do some kind of terms of reference in the Security Council resolution, that would not be what we would consider to be a unilateral step….

“We have supported a range of actions in the past. What we haven’t supported is steps that are unilateral actions that predetermine the outcome of negotiations.”

Kerry, speaking from London, said, “This isn’t the time to detail private conversations or speculate on a U.N. Security Council resolution that hasn’t even been tabled, no matter what pronouncements are made publicly about it.”

In plain talk, the U.S. State Dept. has given the green light for a resolution that does not specifically recognize the Palestinian Authority as a country  but leaves the door open for a resolution that calls on Israel to commit itself to “negotiations” based on Israel “withdrawing” from all land that is to be part of a new Arab country.

The fancy semantic footwork is the expertise of western diplomats trying to prejudge an outcome of negotiations by leaving open no other possibility.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/us-re-defines-unilateral-to-justify-pa-burying-the-oslo-accords/2014/12/17/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: