Obama to Russia: ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’ (video included)

 

SEOUL | Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:54am EDT 

THE WEEKLY STANDARD
8:01 AM, MAR 26, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER 

President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "[a]fter my election I have more flexibility."
Jake Tapper has the exchange:

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."
President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"
President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

Here's video:

Uploaded by GOPICYMI on Mar 26, 2012

Bill Plante of CBS News reports on Obama telling Russian President Medvedev that he will work on the missile defense system with Russia after the election (March 26, 2012).

NOTE:
Read the report posted on HOTAIR, by Ed Morrissey:

"Ah, open microphones at photo ops.  Is there anything they can’t expose?  And is there any lesson about them that Barack Obama can learn?  Five months after reporters picked up a conversation in which Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy disparaged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamim Netanyahu, Obama forgot to check the microphones yet again in a conversation with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.  This time, however, the microphones picked up the sound of Obama begging for some political help from Vladimir Putin — in order to gain the “flexibility” to cave on missile defense:" ,,,, continue reading 

and

posted on The Blaze - OBAMA CAUGHT ON HOT MIC: TELLS RUSSIAN PREZ HE‘LL HAVE MORE ’FLEXIBILITY‘ ’AFTER MY ELECTION’


AND ON TWITTER, POSTED BY aLLEN wEST:

10mAllen West ‏

 

Pres Obama, What do you mean by your comment to Russian Pres Medvedev.. "I can be more flexible after the election." awaiting your response

VIDEO: Japan Now Wants Missile Shield Against North Korea

 

North Korea overshadows nuclear summit
INFO WARS

March 25, 2012
RT 

North Korea has announced it will launch a rocket next month, which will put a satellite into orbit. But the U.S. and its allies see the plans as counter to international diplomatic efforts to deal with the reclusive state’s nuclear programme – and are worried the technology could be used to develop long range missiles in the future. It could also potentially violate UN Security Council resolutions, and threatens last month’s deal between North Korea and the Washington. Under this, Pyonyang was to freeze its uranium weapons program and its long-range missile activities – in return for American food aid. Japan’s has responded by deploying its own missile defense system to shoot down any rocket threatening its territory. For more on this, RT talks to Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford, from London.

NOTE:

SEE: Official: North Korea moves long-range rocket to launch pad

VIDEO: Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians!

NOTE: This alert to Obama's true intentions was reported by MSNBC (liberal news media). by Rachel Maddow of all people!  Watch her expressions and wringing of the hands as she presents, in Obama's own words, a disturbing report that has raised the "Alarm" of even Ms. Maddow, a devout liberal.  Even more disturbing is the fact that this report was posted on January 22, 2011 and now, Americans are actually witnessing his last attempts to proceed with this justification of using FEMA to imprison civilians.  (Remember the Executive Order he signed less than three weeks ago?).
Just watch and listen!

h/t - Pamela

See: Camp FEMA: Exposing the Government Plan for Political Concentration Camps

ISRAEL BRACING FOR VIOLENCE AHEAD OF MASS PRO-JIHAD MARCH ON JERUSALEM

Arab demonstrators marking the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba hold Palestinian flags as they approach the village of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights, between Syria and Israel, May 15, 2011. (Hamad Almakt/Flash 90)

ATLAS SHRUGS
by PAMELA GELLER
SUNDAY, MARCH 25, 2012

The Israeli defense establishment is making preparations for the Global March to Jerusalem, a mass demonstration scheduled for this Friday, in which pro-jihad activists from the region are planning to march on Israel’s borders in a show of support for Islamic Jew-hatred. The vampires are re-energized on the blood of Jewish children slaughtered by devout Muslim, Mohamed Merah.

Last week I posted here on the global march against the Jews. CiF Watch recently established a special website to expose the truth of the Global March to Jerusalem here. due to take place on March 30, 2012. The Global March Against Jerusalem is run by mostly Hamas and MB members -- and Obama's longtime pastor and mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is on the advisory board: http://www.gmj-na.org/home.html. This is the man who shaped Barack Obama's thinking, as documented in my book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America.

Pray for the tiny Jewish state as the forces of evil across the world descend on Israel this Friday. Atlas will be providing updated coverage all week.

From Israel Hayom:

Officials are preparing for potential disturbances along the borders with Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. One defense official told Israel Hayom that the biggest threats appear to be from the Israel-Lebanon border, as members of terrorist group Hezbollah are expected to participate in the march, and from Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria.

Officials in the defense establishment are not ruling out potential disturbances along the Egyptian border, which could harm the already sensitive diplomatic relations between Israel and Egypt. Considering the unrest in Syria and Bashar al-Assad’s efforts to maintain control there, in addition to rallies last year along the Syrian border on Nakba day and Naksa day [when Palestinians mark the creation of the state of Israel and the capture of east Jerusalem, respectively], officials are also keeping close watch on the Syrian border. Since last year’s protests, in which Israeli forces opened fire on demonstrators who breached the border with Syria, the Israel Defense Forces have improved their preparedness along the Syrian border, erecting fences there as well.

According to Arab media outlets, more than 50,000 protesters are expected to march in the Global March to Jerusalem.

Sources in the defense establishment claim that Iran has publicly supported the event, and has taken part in preparations for the march toward Israel’s borders. Sources say Iran’s involvement is proof of the radical Islamic nature of the event. Groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are also expected to take part in the event.

March organizers have said the event would be “non-violent,” but defense establishment officials fear those are false claims.

London-based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported that Israel sent a message to the Arab nations and to the Palestinians, warning of a severe response to anyone who tries to cross the border. According to the report, the message was relayed to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority, and emphasized that the events of last year’s Nakba and Naksa day marches, in which protesters broke through Israel’s border fence, would not be tolerated again.

“Israel, like any sovereign nation, will defend its borders,” an Israeli official said.

Despite the concern in Israel, Arab media outlets speculated that, in light of the current strife in Syria and the political situation in Egypt, there may be small rallies in some areas, but not large marches. A Lebanese report said that the Lebanese Army would allow protesters to march until the Beaufort castle, north of the Litani river, so as to avoid confrontation with Israeli troops...

Posted by Pamela Geller on Sunday, March 25, 2012 at 04:26 PM 


NOTE:
SEE: 

Officials: Israel ready for ‘Global March to J'lem’

And a convert to Islam shall lead the CIA?

 

Only in America.... The head of the CIA's counter-terrorism center - the unit that is responsible for all those drone strikes against members of the religion whose name must never be mentioned alongside the word 'terrorism' - is a convert to Islam (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News). 

His first overseas assignments were in Africa, where the combination of dysfunctional governments, bloody tribal warfare and minimal interference from headquarters provided experience that would prove particularly useful in the post-Sept. 11 world. Many of the agency’s most accomplished counterterrorism operatives, including Black and Richard Blee, cut their teeth in Africa as well.
“It’s chaotic, and it requires you to understand that and deal with it psychologically,” said a former Africa colleague. Roger developed an “enormous amount of expertise in insurgencies, tribal politics, warfare — writing hundreds of intelligence reports.”
He also married a Muslim woman he met abroad, prompting his conversion to Islam. Colleagues said he doesn’t shy away from mentioning his religion but is not demonstrably observant. There is no prayer rug in his office, officials said, although he is known to clutch a strand of prayer beads.

...
“No officer in the agency has been more relentless, focused, or committed to the fight against al-Qaeda than has the chief of the Counterterrorism Center,” [CIA director David] Petraeus said in a statement provided to The Post.
It's a fascinating story, but if I were running the CIA, I think the one detail I would not want revealed about 'Roger' other than his real name is the fact that he is a convert to Islam. That's likely to enrage his targets even more.
Read the whole thing. 


ISRAEL MATZAV
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:30 PM

Obama the Appeaser

 

March 25, 2012

american thinker

By Elise Cooper

Although President Obama is not the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century, he is rapidly moving in that direction. He is much too accommodating towards the U.S. 's adversaries. American Thinker asked some national security experts how they would characterize the President's recent foreign policy towards North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Russia. The unanimous answer; he showed weakness, not strength.

A few weeks ago North Korea and the US appeared to have come to an agreement to exchange food for nuclear concessions. The problem is that the agreement was made without the requirement that the North Koreans eliminate rather than suspend their program. Negotiations with the Koreans have occurred over the last two decades, starting with the Clinton Administration's deal in 1994.

Former Congressman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), who is currently running for the Senate, does not want to give anything to the Koreans until they provide complete access to their sites, especially "since they never deliver at the negotiations, and do the same thing each time. These negotiations never work and are always violated. North Korea has fooled us four times now." This is no more evident than when North Korea announced last Friday plans to blast a satellite into space on the back of a long range missile. Many intelligence officials believe this is a test of an ICBM capable of delivering a nuclear payload to the US. What is a note of importance is that President Obama had made agreements without definable concessions: as part of the deal North Korea had agreed to a moratorium on long-range launches, something they obviously do not plan to honor.
Iran also requested a new round of nuclear negotiations, which was accepted by the global powers, including the US. President Obama felt his policy of a diplomatic approach and sanctions helped to get Iran to resume negotiations. Congressman Rooney (R-FLA) disagrees, stating, "This whole philosophy of showing we are not hostile towards them is wrong. The Iranians look at it as a sign of weakness and seize upon it." Since America has been talking to the Iranians about their nuclear program for over thirty years should this administration still be engaging them?

Former Ambassador and CIA Director James Woolsey pointed out that many of America's Presidents have tried to engage the Iranians to stop their nuclear program; yet "it has been a total and complete failure each time. It will never succeed with this government. By entering into formal negotiations we have given them status. Giving them status should be a no game. There are ways to talk with them privately, without formal talks, such as talks through intermediaries like our intelligence service. The formal talks will be to our disadvantage."
Three months ago the Taliban announced they were ready to enter into negotiations with the US. However, last week it announced that it was suspending the dialogue. The inference to these statements is that the Taliban appeared to be the ones in control, not the superpower, America. As the Taliban was suspending US talks, the President of Afghanistan was demanding that NATO forces pull back from the villages over the issues of the Koran burning by US soldiers and the killings of civilians by a deranged US soldier. All interviewed agreed that the President needed to speak to President Karzai and apologize for mistakes made. However, regarding the Koran burnings President Obama neglected to point out that the Muslim holy book was defaced by radical Islamists and therefore had to be burned.

Congressman Rooney would have liked the President to say, at the same time, "our soldiers have sacrificed their blood and lives to try to make Afghanistan a better place. By apologizing the way he did, he legitimized the riots. The only thing they respect is strength and by apologizing the way he did the President showed weakness not strength."

As the President was apologizing six American soldiers were killed. Did President Obama demand an apology or answers from Karzai? There have been many instances over the years when Afghan soldiers and their police force have fired upon American soldiers; yet, the President has never demanded an apology. There appears to be a double standard where the President's policy, according to Hoekstra, is to have a "bandwagon of apologies. This is the administration's new standard, an accommodating America where we appear humiliated."

Egypt, America's staunch ally just thirteen months ago, was accommodated through the payment of a ransom to get the American rights workers released. For each of the sixteen Americans, $300,000 was paid. Is this setting a bad precedent, encouraging kidnappings for money all over the world? Ambassador Woolsey would have advised the President to pay the bill to get the Americans out and then cut off a portion of the billion dollars of military aid to Egypt. He feels that if the administration does nothing but pay the ransom, "we are setting ourselves up for future hostage takers. This is why countries like Egypt have to be shown we will not put up with this kind of behavior."

Early in President Obama's administration he showed these signs of weakness when during the arms control negotiations with Russia he decided to unilaterally take out the missile defense programs in Eastern Europe and received nothing in return. Woolsey sees missile defense as very important and feels "this administration has shown weakness in dealing with the Russians. I am quite critical of the way this administration handled the missile defense program."
Fast forward to today when Russia has deployed an anti-terror squad in support of Syrian President Assad. Woolsey could not understand "why this administration was tougher on former Egyptian President Mubarak and Libyan President Gaddafi, who were terrible dictators but did not cause a lot of difficulty to the US, than we are on Assad. This is absolutely beyond me." Perhaps because the President embodies a weak America where Russia is able to gain the upper hand.

By constantly conceding points and apologizing President Obama has shown weakness, not strength and engagement. There appears to be the perception that America can be pushed around with no consequences. Pete Hoekstra summarized it best, "The President thought by pressing the 're-set button' for foreign policy our enemies and adversaries would reciprocate. His offering of the Olive Branch has not worked. The question that needs to be asked, 'does any American feel more comfortable today about the Middle East and other areas of the world than 3 1/2 years ago?'" The answer is an obvious no.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/obama_the_appeaser.html#ixzz1qCKwUIys

Report: Obama Regime Negotiations With The Taliban Have Failed…

 

Shockingly not shocking.

(Reuters) – U.S. negotiation efforts with the Taliban have failed and the United Nations should take the lead to optimize the chances of ending almost 11 years of war, a think tank said on Monday.
In a blow to hopes of a negotiated end to the war, the Taliban suspended talks with the United States two weeks ago after the alleged massacre of 17 Afghan civilians by a lone U.S. soldier and the burning of Korans at a NATO base last month.
“U.S. efforts to negotiate with the Taliban to date have failed and risk further destabilizing the country and the region, and as a result we call for the U.N. Secretary General to intervene and appoint a team of negotiators,” said Candace Rondeaux, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG).
In a 51-page report, the think tank said the effect of international support for negotiations had been to increase “incentives for spoilers … who now recognize that the international community’s most urgent priority is to exit Afghanistan with or without a settlement.”
Calls for a negotiated settlement have grown over the last few years as NATO-led troops battle a stubborn insurgency and Western forces begin drawing down troop levels ahead of a pullout of most soldiers by the end of 2014.

Posted by ZIP on Sunday, March 25, 2012, at 5:22 pm
WEASEL ZIPPERS

President Obama, Why did you bypass Congress?!

President Obama, Why Did You Bypass Congress and Give the Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 Billion Dollars Today?

 

christwire

MARCH 22, 2012 5:32 PM

Hello, dear readers and good friends, my name is Joe P. Reagan. I have one question on my mind today: President Obama, during these terse economic times, why the hell did you just bypass Congress and give the Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 billion dollars.

Several times in the past, including a State of the Union address and trips through various states, Obama has made it pretty clear that he has no qualms with bypassing Congress. The entire Checks and Balances thing that our founding fathers and subsequent leaders developed just doesn’t seem palatable to this Harvard man’s liberal elite palate, I guess.

When in Colorado, Obama stated that he would bypass Congress if they did not agree with some of his economic polices. “And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it for ourselves.”

During lunch with my friends today in the DC metro, one of them seem troubled. To keep his privacy, all I will say is he works in the legislature. A little birdie on his shoulder made an announcement that Hillary Clinton will be making by the time of this report, if not a bit before. Obama is giving $1.5 billion dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood. Naturally, our Congress did not approve this measure.

Muslim Brotherhood burns upside down US flag to show affection and love for us, naturally meriting an unCongress approve check for $1.5 billion dollars. Did Obama sign it <3 the American people?

For those wondering how the Muslim Brotherhood feels about America, here is an image to help you out.

Those are the guys Obama just gave $1.5 billion, as a means of ‘aid’ to Egypt and to help them solidify their authority.  I’m guessing they won’t be buying us any Hallmark Thank You cards for our little token of affection.

I don’t know about you, but $1.5 billion sounds like a bunch of money to send to people who hate you so much, that they wake up in the morning, pray, take time to unwrinkle their robes, throw on head-gear and walk the family 30 miles through war-earned rubble and brutal desert heat to gather around the one guy burning an upside-down US flag.

Just think about how the day is going for these people:  they are centering all their effort around angrily yelling and burning an US flag.  Obama, this means they probably do not like us.  So again, why the hell are we giving them $1.5 billion dollars?

Doesn’t NASA need to start building some new shuttles?  Our college students, aren’t we talking about cutting out Pell Grants and tuition for them?  Aren’t responsible homeowners smacked by the recession in need of a little cash to get back on their feet?  Hell, I’d even pay for every prisoner to get a nice HDTV in their air-conditioned cells before giving these future anti-America brotherhood one bit of cash.

There is a reason Congress restricted  military aid to Egypt.  There was provision that ”unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights,” we were to halt all aid.  Egypt is not only making zero progress on any type of rights, but the government-to-be is anti-American.  Iran is already jonesing to build a nuke and wipe out Israel.  Did we forget that Egypt lead the last Islamic war against Israel, not even 50 years ago?  Do you think this theocratic nation of ruling grandfathers is telling their sons to go play kiss and make up with the Jews?

Obama joins the Muslim brotherhood in burning all that is sacred to America. Be it flag or Constitution, setting flame to either is showing flagrant disregard to America's tradition of freedom, applied bona-fide jurisprudence in checks and balances and our Christian tradition and heritage.

I don’t think so!  How about you, good readers?  Do you really think Obama is wise in giving the Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 billion dollars?  Do you think he should really bypass Congress and the Constitution to aide foreign terrorists?

Egyptians have long persecuted Christians and every other person who is not practicing Islam.  The reports of abuse of Christians by Egypt and its theocratic allies is sickening and beyond criminal.  One of the new candidates for Egyptian presidency and favorite among the Muslim brotherhood is running a successful campaign based one a simple platorm:  America is an infidel country that allows Christians, so they will always be our enemy.

In spite of all this, Obama has agreed to resume funding for Egypt’s military, controlled by the Muslim brotherhood.  America will be sending to Egypt $1.5 billion of our dollars.  This will happen despite Egypt’s continued violation of human rights and the fact that the people there do not really like America.

Senator Leahy, a Democrat, is already speaking out on this issue:  “I believe [sending the money is] a mistake.  The new restriction was intended to put the United Sates squarely on the side of the Egyptian people who seek a civilian government that respects fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to clearly define the terms of our future relations with the Egyptian military.”

At this point, we can assume Egypt will conspire to build up an anti-American government and build up a strong, anti-US military.  Then, we will be forced to go overthrow another genocidal dictator in 30 years or so, our troops fighting against weapons bought by one stubborn president who liked to dance on the Constitution and not take the advice of Congress.

Why I support Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria

 

FRESNO ZIONISM

March 25th, 2012
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has proposed yet another investigation of Israel’s ‘crimes’, this one in respect to settlements. It passed by a vote of 36 in favor, one opposed (the US), and 10 abstentions. Israel has announced that it won’t cooperate, and is considering withdrawing its ambassador to the UN office in Geneva.


I am not particularly interested in writing another post excoriating the UNHRC or the UN itself, which is a vile institution, far less than worthless. Rather, I want to summarize some important issues about ‘West Bank settlements’ — that is, Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria — and why I support them. Here are a few reasons:

International law — and justiceThe League of Nations Mandate called for ‘close settlement’ (see also here) of the land by Jews. UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 call for secure and recognized boundaries for all states in the region, including Israel, to be established by direct negotiations between the parties. Neither the Jews nor the Arab states accepted the 1949 armistice lines as borders, and the ethnic cleansing of Jews in 1948 followed by the illegal Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria until 1967 did not make them so. Jews lived in the territories before 1948, and have as much right to live there today as then.The argument that the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of Jews into ”occupied territories” fails for several reasons, including the status of the Jewish presence there and the original intent of the Geneva Convention.The Palestinian Arabs wish to establish a state in the territories where Jews will not be permitted to live (statements to the contrary are disingenuous), indeed from which they will be expelled. This is racist.SecurityThe Palestinian leadership — Hamas and the PLO — do not hide the fact that they are committed to the replacement of Israel by an Arab state. Further, Hamas’ founding principles include genocide against the Jews, arguably everywhere, not just in Palestine. The withdrawal from Gaza provides a lesson about the consequences of Palestinian sovereignty close to Israel’s population centers. The topography of the area (which contains hills overlooking Israel’s coastal plain and the Jordan valley) makes it strategically essential for the defense of the Jewish state (so is the Golan, incidentally) .There is no doubt that a Palestinian state in the territories will become a base for both terrorist and diplomatic attacks on the remaining state of Israel. The Palestinians have said so more than once. The only way to insure that they will remain in Jewish hands is to populate them with Jews.ZionismJudea and Samaria (and of course Jerusalem) are of paramount importance in history of the Jewish people. Although the Jewish state was founded in part to provide a place for Jews to live normal lives free of antisemitism, it was founded here and not in Africa or Siberia for a reason: to remind Jews of their history and peoplehood. This isn’t limited to religiously observant Jews, although today, unfortunately, they tend to be the almost the only ones who take Jewish peoplehood seriously. But you can ask — and the Palestinians do — what would happen to Zionism and Israel without the connection to Jewish history and holy sites.
But…what about all those Arabs?The overriding reason given by Zionist opponents to Jewish communities across the Green Line is that if Israel were to annex the territories, there would be even more Arab citizens of Israel, ultimately a majority. Israel would then be faced with the choice of maintaining its democracy, or remaining Jewish by denying Arabs the vote.There are reasons to doubt this: the Palestinian authority lies about how many Arabs live there (what else is new), the Arab birthrate is not as high as they say and is trending lower, and the Jewish birthrate is relatively high there. But there is a much more important reason that this is not a critical issue:There is no necessity for Israel to annex all of Judea and Samaria. The great majority of Arabs (97% or so) live in areas (designated A an B) that are under the administration of the Palestinian Authority (PA). They already have a (poorly, but that’s their problem) functioning government. There are very few Arabs in the areas where the Jewish communities are located. Israel could simply make “area C” a part of Israel, and offer citizenship to any Arabs living there.
Of course this would not make it possible for the Palestinians to have the contiguous state they claim to desire. Which brings us to the next topic:Why should a ‘Palestinian’ state be created on the backs of the Jewish People?Israel does not owe the Palestinian Arabs a state, in part because the Palestinian narrative in which ‘their land’ was ‘stolen’ is false, and in part because a ‘people’ whose culture is based on hatred and whosehighest honors are given to the most vicious murderers are not owed anything by a civilized world.
Keep in mind that when offers of a contiguous sovereign state were made, including evacuation of many Jewish communities (2000 and 2008), they were not accepted because they did not include right of return or other conditions that were incompatible with the continued existence of a Jewish state next door.

The political organization appropriate for the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria is probably not that of a sovereign state. I believe that the best that can be offered today is some kind of autonomy, in a framework of Israeli security control.
There are other ‘peoples’ that don’t have their own state, for various reasons. There are 22 Arab states in the Middle East — all of which define themselves in ethnic or religious terms (or both), by the way. Why create yet another, at the expense of the one tiny state of the Jewish people?

Obama Omits Deadline on 'Diplomatic Window' for Iran

 

Obama looks along the border between North and South Korea

Reuters

Obama says “window is closing” on Iran but there still is time for diplomacy. He did not set a deadline, likely after November.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 3/25/2012, 2:04 PM
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS

President Barack Obama said Sunday that a “window is closing” on Iran but there still is time for diplomacy. He did not set a deadline, but it would likely be after the presidential elections in November.The president made his remarks to reporters in Seoul on the eve of a nuclear security summit. “I believe there is a window of time to solve this diplomatically, but that window is closing," the president said.President Obama’s statement was nothing new – he said 10 days ago that the diplomatic window is “shrinking,” but his constant talk on Iran represents his determination to jawbone Israel by demonstrating willingness to strike Iran militarily to keep it from attaining nuclear capability.The U.S. administration still is banking on economic sanctions to convince Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to cooperate with United Nations officials and allow them open and free inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities.The president is anxious to avoid another military intervention in a foreign country before the elections, but Israel is worried that November will be too late as Ahmadinejad continues to fortify nuclear facilities in mountainous areas and under concrete bunkers.A military battle with Iran before the elections also would create what is perhaps a worse problem for President Obama – soaring oil prices."Right now the key thing that is driving higher gas prices is actually the world's oilmarkets and uncertainty about what's going on in Iran and the Middle East. That's adding a $20 or $30 premium to oil prices, and that obviously affects gas prices,” he said in an interview with the American Automobile Association (AAA).AAA, which reports on national gas prices, reported that the national average of the price at the pump is $3.89 a gallon, nearly 20 percent higher than at the beginning of the year.The state-controlled Iranian Fars News Agency told its readers that a “prominent member of the Iranian parliament” said that President Obama exempted 11 countries from tough sanctions against purchasing Iranian crude in order to keep gasoline prices from rising further.

Angry over latest probe, Israel may recall Geneva UN envoy

 

U.N. Human Rights Council. An anti-Israeli agenda. [Archive] 

|

 Photo credit: Reuters 

Israel mulls recalling its ambassador to United Nations Human Rights Council over its decision to investigate the "impact of Israeli settlements on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria" • Investigative committee will not be allowed to enter Israel, says official.

ISRAEL HAYOM
Mati Tuchfeld, Yoni Hirsch and Israel Hayom Staff

 

Foreign Minister Lieberman says Israel may recall its envoy to the Human Rights Council. 

|

 Photo credit: AP 

Israel was considering recalling its ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council over the council's recent decision to investigate the impact of Israeli settlements on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said over the weekend.

The Human Rights Council passed the resolution to launch the investigation in light of Israel’s planned construction of new housing units for Jewish settlers in Judea, Samaria and neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. The council says such actions "undermine the peace process and threaten a potential two-state solution and the creation of a contiguous and independent Palestinian state."

The 47-member forum adopted the resolution to launch a probe by a vote of 36 states in favor, including China and Russia, with one against (the United States). Ten abstained, including European Union members Italy and Spain.

The text was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and cosponsored by states including Cuba and Venezuela.

“In violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, Israel is continuing construction of illegal settlements in the occupied territories including East Jerusalem,” Pakistan’s ambassador, Zamir Akram, told the talks.

The three investigators are to be named at a later date.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly dismissed the Geneva forum on Thursday evening as “hypocritical” and having an “automatic majority against Israel.”

Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Roni Leshno-Yaar told Army Radio Sunday morning that “unfortunately, we already have experience with such one-sided organizations.”

“The way Israel handled similar cases in the past proved very successful, be it with the Goldstone Commission or with the U.N. commission investigating the Gaza flotilla,” Leshno-Yaar added. “We handled those in the correct manner, with all the difficulty that accompanied the process.”

“Out of eight European Union states on the [Human Rights] Council, six chose to abstain in order not to support this initiative,” he said. “As far as I am concerned, that is a good indication.”

Pointing to the fact that more than half of the resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council have condemn Israel, Leshno-Yaar said “we must keep in mind that during the six years of the council’s existence, 46 resolutions condemning Israel have been approved, while only 36 resolutions dealing with all other countries, including Syria and Iran – have been approved in that time,” he stressed. “This goes to demonstrate this body’s legitimacy and degree of professionalism.”

Meanwhile, a senior government official in Jerusalem said that “Israel will not cooperate with the investigation just as we didn’t cooperate with the Goldstone Commission,” adding that the members of the investigative committee would not be permitted to enter Israel.

Vice Prime Minister Moshe (Bogey) Ya’alon issued a response to the HRC decision, saying, “The decision to investigate the settlements perpetuates the Human Rights Council’s definitive anti-Israel line, with record-breaking hypocrisy, ugliness and shamelessness.”

“A cursory look at some of the members of this council, who voted against Israel, reveals corrupt nations with cruel dictators who do not hesitate to massacre their own people, and other nations that deprive women, homosexuals and members of minorities of basic human rights,” Ya’alon added.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon also addressed the controversial decision, saying, “Once again, the Human Rights Council has proven to be a rubber stamp for the Palestinians. It was once again demonstrated that the Palestinians do not seek a historic compromise or peace, but that they only seek confrontation and battle.”

“This is an extension of the same diplomatic and political incitement campaign that the Palestinians have been waging against us in recent months, without pausing for a second. As far as Israel is concerned, the U.N. investigative committee has no validity – neither moral nor political - and therefore we will not allow them to operate here,” Ayalon concluded.

General director of the left-wing NGO Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, also responded, saying, “We must make the distinction between the topic being investigated and the body doing the investigating,” Army Radio reported. “Obviously we think that settlements harm not only Palestinians, but also Israel – but the stance of the [Human Rights Council] is well known, and in fact, the report has already been written.”

“This is a predetermined report written by a committee that has lost its validity as an objective committee,” he added. “I expect that I will agree with some of its conclusions, but the framing of the thing and the fact that this committee will determine the conclusions will only serve to undermine the issue – it will rob the entire issue of its gravity and credibility.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress released $86.6 million in Palestinian aid on Friday – more than half the amount U.S. lawmakers froze six months ago.

Texas Rep. Kay Granger, a Republican and the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations, said that she would approve the transfer of the entire sum - some $147 million - arguing that Palestinian stability was in order now more than ever.

Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Republican, sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rescinding her objection to the transfer of the $86.6 million

NOTE:
SEE:   Breaking: Ayalon tells Israel Radio that 'human rights council' 'fact-finding mission' won't be allowed in ... POSTED by Israel Matzav

U.S. Unblocks Aid to Palestinian Authority

Smearing Our Troops

FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE
Posted by Arnold Ahlert Bio ↓ on Mar 23rd, 2012 

 

Sergeant Robert Bales stands accused of murdering 16 Afghans, including 9 children. Many top American military officials, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, have intimated that even the death penalty “could be a consideration” should Bales be found guilty of the crime. On cue, the Left has used this tragic incident as an opportunity to impugn the entire military and the nation, claiming the killing is on par with My Lai and is representative of our servicemen and women generally.


CNN blogger Stephen Prothero exemplified this dementia perfectly in a recent piece titled “My Take: It takes a nation to make a massacre” in which he spells out who is really at fault. “It takes a country to make a man do these things, and we were his country,” writes Prothero. “We U.S. citizens voted for the presidents who sent him into combat and for the Congress that appropriated the money for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” If Bales is found guilty? Prothero suggests that “each of the rest of us should spend a day sitting in front of our local jail. There we should confess to our respective gods ‘our sins, known and unknown, things done and left undone’ (as the Book of Common Prayer puts it). Then we should write a letter to the wife and children of Sgt. Bales asking for their forgiveness too.”


Prothero then reflexively descends into one of the prevailing themes that inevitably emerges when an American soldier is accused war crimes: comparisons to Lieutenant William Calley and the massacre at My Lai that occurred during the Vietnam War. Calley’s crimes were indeed horrific, but Counterpunch writer Jeff Sparrow uses them, along with Neil Shea writing for Democracy Now, not merely to condemn Bales, but soldiers in general, who need “a protective layer of hatred to perform what [is] asked of them.” He then takes on America itself, which has ostensibly normalized “torture against (mostly Muslim) detainees; the construction of secret prisons to detain Muslim prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial; the routinisation of assassinations and other extrajudicial killings of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen; and, most of all, deaths of (by the most conservative reckoning) hundreds of thousands of people, most of them Muslim, in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.”


His conclusion is that the war against Islamic terror has “created a new audience who wants to never leave the gun, an audience no longer shocked by atrocity but increasingly prepared to celebrate it.” Completely missing from Sparrow’s article, however, is a single word on the far greater — and continuing — atrocities committed by the Taliban and other jihadists across the world, which our military has sacrificed enormously to prevent.


Shea himself continues with another trope made popular during the Vietnam war: American soldiers straddle the border between sanity and psychosis. “I met up with a group of soldiers who were the first I had ever come across who made me feel pretty nervous about what I was going to see while I was with them,” he writes. “And I spent a few days with them and came to just really understand that they had gotten to the edge of violence, as we understand it, in Afghanistan, and they seemed ready and capable of doing some pretty bad things. I didn’t actually witness them do anything too terrible, but the way that they talked and the way that they acted toward Afghan civilians and animals and property in the country was sort of stunning to me…Many of these guys seemed like they had reached the end of their rope in terms of stability and controlling their aggression.” That’s a rather remarkable conclusion for a man who “didn’t actually witness” our troops doing anything wrong.


At least Shea was somewhat restrained. Benjamin Busch’s Daily Beast article on the issue warns that the murders allegedly committed by Bales allow “for the possibility that any one of us could go insane at any time, and that every veteran poisoned by their combat experience could be on edge for life.” He too takes Americans as a whole to task, noting that our “national disinterest” in “distant events” is unsurprising because “we are a people known more and more for our selfish distractions than for our awareness.”


In the New York Times, psychiatrist and retired brigadier general Dr. Stephen Xenakis employs both themes, and asserts that Sgt. Bales is “emblematic” of bigger problems within the military. “This is equivalent to what My Lai did to reveal all the problems with the conduct of the Vietnam War,” contends Xenakis. “The Army will want to say that soldiers who commit crimes are rogues, that they are individual, isolated cases. But they are not.” The Tucson Sentinel’s Charles M. Sennott echoes those thoughts. “Overnight, Bales has for many around the world become the face of what is wrong with America’s war in Afghanistan,” he contends. “Just as 44 years ago in the ides of March of 1968, the My Lai massacre and Lt. William Calley became synonymous with all that was wrong with the war in Vietnam.”


Much of what was “wrong” with the Vietnam war was the same kind of leftist campaign to smear American soldiers as barbarians, animals and baby killers in order to demoralize the nation and the military. This effort was led by people like Jane Fonda, who, in 1972, visited Hanoi and was photographed sitting atop a North Vietnamese Army (NVA) enemy anti-aircraft battery. She called American POWs “military careerists and professional killers” and claimed they were lying about their mistreatment. She also participated in ten radio broadcasts during which she denounced American political and military leaders as “war criminals.”


In 1971, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, who had joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), testified that his fellow American soldiers ”raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war…” It was later revealed that the so-called Winter Soldier investigation was a lie based “eyewitness” testimony from people later revealed to be frauds.


As for the “widespread atrocities” committed by American troops, between 1965 and 1973, a grand total of 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. This was out of over two million military personnel, including 1.6 million who served in combat. How many people died at the hands of the “benevolent” Communists after Americans withdrew from the Southeast Asian Peninsula? A genocidal total of more than three million in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia — one for which the American left steadfastly refuses to accept an iota of responsibility, despite their whole-hearted effort to turn Americans against the war.


Nothing has changed. LA Times writer David Horsey, in an article titled “Blame for killings in Afghanistan is shared by us all,” reiterates the psycho-soldier bit, claiming that “incidences of post traumatic stress disorder among returning soldiers are so common they seem almost the norm” before he takes the entire nation to task. “A volunteer Army lets us off the hook. Even worse, it makes it too easy for the politicians,” he writes. “They speak with bravado about standing up to tyrants and bearing any burden for the sake of liberty. And then, to make good on their bold words, they find another place to take the nation into war.”


The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald takes it one step further calling America an empire “subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people.”


Such odious characterizations of our nation and our soldiers are malicious nonsense. That so many detractors use William Calley as a basis of comparison to Robert Bales inadvertently reveals the overwhelming integrity of America’s fighting forces: one must reach 41 years into the past to find a soldier to whom Bales can be compared. As for the larger context, the “widespread” atrocities attributed to Vietnam troops by the left actually totaled slightly more than one-hundredth of one percent of the number of soldiers who served there.


Furthermore, the psycho-soldier meme, or the claim that virtually every American soldier suffers from post traumatic stress disorder (PSTD), or simply teeters on the edge of psychosis, is also undone by the reality that out of the more than one-half million soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan only one has committed an alleged massacre in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
What about the idea that multiple tours caused Bales to commit the atrocity? While it is likely his defense lawyer may employ that reasoning in an effort to get Bales acquitted, there are 51,270 soldiers, active duty, reserve and retired, who, like Bales, have been on four or more deployments, and another 81,000 with three deployments. All of them have somehow managed to avoid committing mass murder, no doubt to the consternation of those so quick to paint an isolated incident with the broadest of broad brushes.


As long as threats to America’s national security exist, America’s fighting forces will be called upon to defend the nation. And as the American left’s long history of smearing American soldiers indicates, they will spare no effort to portray those fighting forces a horde of bloodthirsty barbarians, barely clinging to sanity, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority our troops have performed with courage and valor. Their current poster boy is Sergeant Robert Bales, one of the precious few bad apples among literally millions of men and women who have served our nation with honor. That the American left chooses to focus on the exception rather than the rule reveals far more about them and their pernicious agenda than it does the American military.

About Arnold Ahlert
Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.


Bee's Note:
Sergeant Robert Bales may be one "bad apple" (and I use the word "may" because this soldier has not had his "day in Court" yet) and because it is a military matter, it disturbs me to see so many wanting to hang him "high" before understanding and knowing the circumstances behind Bales actions.  Perhaps I come to his defense due to the fact that the war in Afghanistan continues to be one heck of a bloody war (yes, I know all wars are bloody), but not all wars are equal.  
In WWII, our troops were able (most of the time) to identify the enemy.  But, when the enemy wears no uniform, stands along side the local town's people before shooting an American soldier in the back, it must be the luck of the draw to know who the enemy are among thousands of "citizens" in Afghanistan.  Add to this, the fact that those who are trained by our military are also difficult to trust, as demonstrated when a Koran burning caused the deaths of six of our troops (some, by the very Afgans we had trained!).And let us not forget where bin Laden was found!  Pakistan, the country we have donated billions to, as our so-called "ally".
I will always lean towards the side of caution before condemning one member of our military.  
After fighting this War on Terror for TEN YEARS, how were our troops received when they left Iraq last December?  The Obama Administration did not want an official celebration of their homecoming!  How's that for a simple "thank you" for a job well done?  The Muslims will continue their terrorist attacks among themselves and anyone else in this world - their fight has been going on for centuries and nothing they do today in Islamic nations demonstrates they plan to stop any time soon.  That should not stop America from showing our appreciation and thanks for all the men and women who have sacrificed so much, put their own lives on "hold", to keep America safe.  Would a parade in downtown NYC and across our land have been such a bad thing to do to honor our troops?!  
When I think about "bad apples", I think there are many bad apples that will never see a day in prison, never be brought to trial, but their actions speak louder than words - and the word that comes to mind is treason.
Perhaps, under a new Administration after November, the long-awaited thank you and welcome home will be given America's troops.  By then, we will have been in this fight for over 11 years.
God bless our troops and may God bless America.

"I Honor Back" by Jon Kahn