How badly did Obama and Kerry lie?
At least Israel and Iran can agree on something. Obama and Kerry are unreliable liars.
For the last two weeks, the lame duck Obama administration has been trying to depict itself as
totally passive in allowing UN Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning Israeli 'settlements' in Jerusalem (among other things), to pass.
Last week, Israel Radio reported on an
Egyptian newspaper report that put out a transcript of what was said to be a White House meeting with 'Palestinian negotiators.' Now, MEMRI has
translated that report into English. It's devastating. Among other things not previously reported, the 'Palestinians' asked that Obama cancel the designation of the PLO as a terrorist organization, and insisted that the 'Palestinian leadership' be allowed to move freely in the United States. Look for Obama to issue executive orders on these issues in the next two weeks.
On December 27, the Egyptian daily Al-Youm Al-Sabi',
which is close to Egyptian intelligence services, published an exposé
of the minutes of the secret talks. According to the report, by Ahmed
Gomaa, the Palestinian delegation included PLO Executive Committee
secretary and negotiating team leader Saeb Erekat; Palestinian general
intelligence chief Majid Faraj; Husam Zomlot, strategic affairs advisor
to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud 'Abbas; Palestinian Foreign
Ministry official Dr. Majed Bamya; Palestinian negotiations department
official Azem Bishara; Palestinian intelligence international relations
department chief Nasser 'Adwa; and head of the PLO delegation to
Washington Ma'an Erekat.
The report gave the details of the
Palestinian delegation's schedule during the visit, noting that "the
Palestinian side began its meetings on December 12, when Saeb Erekat and
Majid Faraj met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The next day,
the two met with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The entire
delegation met with an American team that included four representatives
of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, for a six-hour
political-strategic meeting. Majid Faraj concluded his visit with a
lengthy meeting with the CIA chief."
According to the report, the
minutes of the "top secret" meeting of Kerry, Rice, Erekat, and Faraj
reveals U.S.-Palestinian coordination leading up to the UN Security
Council vote on Resolution 2334 regarding Israel's settlements, which
was adopted December 23. It states that the sides "agreed to cooperate
in drafting a resolution on the settlements" and that the U.S.
representative in the Security Council was "empowered" to coordinate
with the Palestinian UN representative on the resolution.
The meeting also, according to the
report, was aimed at coordinating Kerry's attendance at the upcoming
international Paris Conference set for January 15, 2017, in order to
promote a further international move regarding the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Kerry, it said, offered to propose his ideas for a permanent
arrangement "provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side."
At
the meeting, Rice pointed out the "danger" of the incoming Trump
administration's policies, the report stated, adding that both she and
Kerry had advised President 'Abbas to make no preliminary moves that
might provoke the new administration. Rice even offered to help arrange a
meeting between the Palestinian delegation and a representative from
the Trump team, by enlisting the help of World Jewish Congress president
Ronald Lauder.
Also at the meeting, Erekat warned
that if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, the Palestinians would
call to expel U.S. Embassies from Arab and Muslim capitals, the report
said.
The report added that Kerry and
Rice had fulsomely praised 'Abbas's policies and how he handled matters,
and harshly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
saying that he "aims to destroy the two-state solution."
...
U.S.
Representative To The Security Council Coordinated With Palestinian UN
Representative On The Issue Of The Resolution Condemning The Settlements
According to the Al-Youm Al-Sabi' report, "the minutes of the
meeting – which was attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and
National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and on the Palestinian side by PLO
Executive Committee Secretary and negotiations team leader Saeb Erekat,
and head of Palestinian general intelligence Maj,-Gen. Majid Faraj –
reveals that the sides agreed to collaborate regarding a resolution on
the settlements." According to the report, "during the meeting, the
American side focused on coordination of positions between Washington
and Ramallah regarding the resolution on the settlements, which was
brought to a vote in the Security Council and adopted several days
ago..."
The report stated that "the minutes of the meeting reveal
American-Palestinian coordination regarding the resolution on the
settlements" and that Kerry and Rice stressed that "they were willing to
cooperate with a balanced resolution, and that Washington's UN mission
was authorized to discuss this matter with the Palestinian
representative to the UN, Ambassador Riyad Mansour." It continued: "The
U.S.'s representative to the Security Council coordinated with the
Palestinian ambassador on the issue of the resolution condemning the
settlements."
Coordinating Kerry's Attendance At International Conference In France
The delegation also attempted to coordinate Kerry's attendance at the
Paris Conference, which will take place January 15, 2017, to promote a
further international move for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
according to the report. "As for the French initiative, U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry said that he could not attend [the conference if it
were to be held] December 21-22, but stressed that he could [attend it
if it were to be held] after January 9. The Palestinian delegation
stressed that 'Abbas had contacted the French side, and that it had
expressed its willingness to postpone the international conference [in
Paris] so that the American secretary of state could attend."
Possibility Of Kerry Presenting His Ideas For Permanent Solution
According to the report, "Kerry raised the
possibility of presenting ideas for a permanent solution, provided that
they are supported by the Palestinian side... and this refers to
principles that have already been raised as part of the Framework
Agreement.[3]
He also proposed that the Palestinian delegation travel to Saudi Arabia
to discuss these points, but according to the minutes, he did not
contact the Saudis on this matter. [Additionally,] according to the
minutes of the meeting, National Security Advisor Susan Rice rejected,
and ridiculed, the offer to propose ideas, arguing that the [incoming]
administration of Republican President Donald Trump will completely
oppose them."
Rice "Stressed The Danger Posed By The Trump Administration"
Rice, the report stated, "stressed the
danger posed by the Trump administration, which could take a position
different from that of all American administrations since 1967 on the
issue of Palestine and Israel. She emphasized that she took seriously
statements about moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and the Trump
administration's view of the settlements."
Kerry and Rice "advised Palestinian
President Mahmoud 'Abbas to not take any preliminary steps that could
provoke the Trump administration, such as dismantling the PA, turning to
the International Criminal Court, or ending security coordination with
Israel," said the report, adding: "They [also] stressed the need to
avoid military action or martyrdom [attacks], as these would greatly
jeopardize the Palestinian position.
"They praised the substantial efforts of
the Palestinian security apparatuses, specifically Palestinian [general]
intelligence, led by Majid Faraj, as part of what they called 'the
struggle against terrorism.' [The two] maintained that
Palestinian-American collaboration in this area is among the closest of
all the coordination between American apparatuses and security forces in
the region."
Rice Offered To Organize Meeting Between Ronald Lauder And Palestinian Delegation
"According to the minutes of the meeting,
Susan Rice asked whether the Palestinian delegation could meet with a
representative from Donald Trump's team. She clarified that she could
request intervention and could organize this by means of World Jewish
Congress President Ronald Lauder. Saeb Erekat responded that he had
already asked but that Lauder could not. He added: 'We were told that
they were still organizing the new administration, and that once they
were done, they would officially meet with the Palestinian side.'"
Erekat: If U.S. Embassy Is Moved To Jerusalem, We Will Call To Expel U.S. Embassies From Arab And Muslim Countries
"When Susan Rice asked what the
Palestinian response would be if the U.S. Embassy was moved to
Jerusalem, or if a new settlement bloc was annexed, Erekat responded:
'We will directly and immediately join 16 international organizations,
withdraw the PLO's recognition of Israel, and cut back our security,
political, and economic ties with the Israeli occupation regime, and we
will hold it fully responsible for the PA's collapse. Furthermore, we
will [call] on the Arab and Islamic peoples to expel U.S. Embassies from
their capitals.' Rice answered Erekat by saying: 'It seems that future
matters could be very complicated, and we are all apprehensive about
sitting down with Erekat because of his absolute knowledge of these
matters, and because of his memory and his sincerity.' She expressed the
American side's respect and friendship for Erekat, and apologized for
yelling at him in March 2014."
"The Palestinian Delegation Officially Demanded That The Law... Designating The PLO A Terrorist Organization Be Rescinded"
According to the report, "the Palestinian
side officially demanded that the 1987 U.S. law designating the PLO a
terrorist organization be rescinded.
[4]
Furthermore, both sides agreed to establish a bilateral commission to
examine visa requests from Palestinians and entry and movement visas for
Palestinian leadership in the U.S."
Read the whole thing.
Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, designated terror organization, Jerusalem Embassy Act, John Kerry, Ron Lauder, Saeb Erekat, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!
The Obama administration's effort to deny Prime Minister Netanyahu's charge that
Obama was behind the passage of a
UN resolution declaring the Western Wall to be 'Palestinian territory' has come apart under the weight of its own lies.
You will recall, if you follow the links above that the Obama administration denied the Netanyahu government's accusations that Obama-Kerry were behind and orchestrating the UN resolution. And if you keep reading below, you will find out that in fact, the Obama administration has been orchestrating this resolution since September, and that John Kerry's little post-election trip to New Zealand (and Antartica) is likely connected to it.
On Wednesday morning, Israel Radio reported on an Egyptian newspaper report that published a summary of a meeting among Kerry, Susan Rice and chief 'Palestinian'
negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat. That led to this denial from US National Security Council spokesman Ned Price:
To which CAMERA analyst Gidon Shaviv responded.
Price equivocated.
Price never responded to the question.
But in fact, on Tuesday, the State Department's Mark Toner admitted that the meeting did take place. And
much more (full transcript
here).
QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, tensions have been
increasing since the UN vote on Friday. I’m sure you’ve seen all the
reports and heard a lot of the words. The Israeli officials are now
being quoted as saying that they have evidence that they will lay out to
the Trump administration of – in which the U.S., specifically Kerry,
had discussions with the Palestinians before the vote, a few weeks
before, during a visit to Washington where Saeb Erekat was around, and
basically that he pushed them to go to Egypt and to move ahead with this
resolution. That’s one of the things.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: So the question is: Was the U.S. hiding behind this
other group of countries to submit the resolution? Were those
discussions ever taken place? Because the Israelis feel that they’ve got
evidence that there was meddling by the Americans.
MR TONER: Excuse me. Forgive me. (Coughs.) I picked up a cold over the weekend too, unfortunately, so I apologize.
So you’re right. We’ve obviously seen the same reports, an
amalgamation of different allegations that somehow this was U.S.-driven
and precooked. What I’ll say – excuse me – (coughs) – is that we reject
the notion that the United States was the driving force behind this
resolution. That’s just not true. The United States did not draft this
resolution, nor did it put it forward. It was drafted and initially
introduced, as we all know, by Egypt, in coordination with the
Palestinians and others. When it was clear that the Egyptians and the
Palestinians would insist on bringing this resolution to a vote and that
every other country on the council would, in fact, support it, we made
clear to others, including those on the Security Council, that further
changes were needed to make the text more balanced. And that’s a
standard practice on – with regard to resolutions at the Security
Council. So there’s nothing new to this.
Actually, it's
not 'standard practice' unless you're looking for an excuse not to veto it. If the United States had planned to veto the resolution - as happened many times in the past - it would not have bothered to pretend to make the text 'more balanced,' because it would not have mattered. And it certainly would not have sent Secretary Kerry gallivanting around the world to work on it.
You look like you’re pouncing on me, but go ahead.
QUESTION: No, we just —
MR TONER: No, we’ll continue. I can continue, but if you have a – do you have a follow up?
QUESTION: No, no. Let’s just keep going with this.
MR TONER: Okay, sure. And this is a really important point. We
also made clear at every conversation – in every conversation – that
the President would make the final decision and that he would have to
review the final text before making his final decision. So the idea that
this was, again, precooked or that we had agreed upon the text weeks in
advance is just not accurate. And in fact —
QUESTION: But we know that —
MR TONER: Go ahead. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, we know that the U.S. didn’t draft it or put it
forward. But was the U.S. in any way coaxing on any – another group of
countries to move ahead and go and move ahead with this resolution?
You mean like 'humiliated' Joe Biden
leaning on Ukraine to improve the 'optics' and make it 14-0? But Toner didn't bother to explain that.
MR TONER: Well, again, these are – I mean, again, I think it’s
important to have the proper context, in that all through the fall
there was talk about – and we often got the question here and of course
we replied that we’re never going to discuss hypotheticals in terms of
what resolutions or what is circulating out there – but of course, there
has been for some time in the fall talk about this resolution or that
resolution with regard to the Middle East peace and the
Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Yes, of course. Because without the need to worry any more about himself or his party, the true Jew-hating Obama was free to come out.
So of course, in the – of course, in the course of those
conversations, we’re always making clear what our parameters are, what
our beliefs are, what our – what we need to see or what we – in order to
even consider a resolution. That’s part of the give-and-take of the UN.
QUESTION: But surely these countries, before they would move
ahead, would want to get the view of an influential member of the
Security Council of the UN of who – of what their position would be on
this.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think we – of course, as the draft or
the text was circulated, we said to those on the Security Council that –
what further changes were needed to make the text more balanced. And in
fact, we ended up abstaining because we didn’t feel it was balanced
enough in the sense of it didn’t hit hard enough on the
incitement-to-violence side of the coin.
No. When you abstain and you could have vetoed, that's a vote in favor. Let's call a spade a spade.
Go ahead. You look perplexed. (Laughter.) Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: At what stage did you intervene to try and balance? Was it after Egypt said they’d withdraw it?
MR TONER: I think it was once – yeah, I mean, once – I mean, I
don’t have a date certain. It was once the Egyptians and Palestinians
made it clear that they were going to advance this text or bring this
resolution to a vote and that, in fact, it would be supported by other
countries.
QUESTION: Does that date predate Mr. Erekat’s visit to the State Department?
MR TONER: I don’t know the date of his visit. But again, I’m
not – I’m not exactly – and I’m not necessarily excluding that when he
did visit to the State Department that they didn’t discuss possible
resolutions or anything like that in terms of draft language. But again,
there was no – nothing precooked. There was nothing – this was not some
move orchestrated by the United States.
Please.
Erekat 'visited' the State Department on December 12 - ten days before the Egyptians presented and withdrew the resolution, and eleven days before Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela - with open support from the UK and behind the scenes support from the US - presented it again. Orchestrated? Bet on it.
QUESTION: Could you be clear what you just said? I heard a
double negative in there. You’re not precluding that they didn’t discuss
it. Are you saying they – that when the Palestinians were here —
MR TONER: I don’t have a readout. Yeah, I don’t have a readout
of that meeting in front of me. I just – but I said I can imagine that
they talked about Middle East peace broadly and efforts to reinvigorate
the process. I don’t know that they discussed the possible action at the
UN. But of course, as we – as I said in answer to Lesley’s question,
that was something that was in the mix for some months now in New York
at the UN that there might be some action taken there.
This wouldn't be anywhere near as suspicious had the meeting been publicly disclosed on December 12. But if had, Israel would not have been blindsided.
QUESTION: And what about New Zealand, when the Secretary was there before Antarctica?
MR TONER: Yeah.
Yeah indeed. Let's interrupt for a minute. Here's a
New Zealand Herald report from November 13, five days after the US election.
One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of
State John Kerry and the New Zealand Government today was a potential
resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state
solution for the Israel - Palestinian conflict.
After the talks, Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring a resolution.
"It
is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we've spent some time
talking to Secretary Kerry about where the US might go on this.
"It is something that is still in play," McCully told reporters after talks today in Wellington.
New Zealand's two-year term on the Security Council will end in ignominy on Saturday. But then, we should not have been as surprised by
their behavior as we were. Our bad.
Back to the State Department.
QUESTION: And also I believe he had a meeting here with Mr. Shoukry at some point in early December.
MR TONER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Was the resolution discussed at either of those meetings with those diplomats?
MR TONER: Again, I can’t specifically say whether the
resolution – but certainly, if a resolution or action at the UN was
discussed, it wasn’t discussed in the level of detail where there was
some final text. We always reserved the right with any text that was put
forward, drafted and put forward, to veto it or to not take action or
abstain, which is what we ended up doing.
Like I said - when you have a veto and you don't use it, you're voting in favor.
QUESTION: But you advised them on how to put
together a motion that the United States would feel comfortable
abstaining or voting in favor of?
MR TONER: Well, I think what we said is – and this is not just
unique to this process, but once a text, a draft text is to the point
where it’s going to be put forward to a vote, of course we would provide
input on what we believed were – was language that didn’t pass or
didn’t allow us to vote for it or —
QUESTION: You see what I’m saying?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You didn’t just say bring whatever motion you like
up and we’ll vote however we feel about it. You were encouraging them to
bring forward a motion that you would feel comfortable not blocking.
Sounds like game, set and match right here.
MR TONER: Well, but we have to be really careful in how we’re talking about this because what the allegations —
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: No, I know and I understand that. But no, no, but
I’m saying that some of the allegations out there, frankly, are implying
that this was somehow some – as I said, some orchestrated action by the
U.S. to pass a resolution that was negative about settlement activity
in Israel, and the fact is that that’s just not the case. Of course, we
would always provide, when the final text was going up for a vote, our
opinion on where the red lines were. But I think that – I think this is
all a little bit of a sideshow, to be honest, that this was a resolution
that we could not in good conscience veto because it condemns violence,
it condemned incitement, it reiterates what has long been the
overwhelming consensus international view on settlements, and it calls
for the parties to take constructive steps to advance a two-state
solution on the ground. There was nothing in there that would prompt us
to veto that type of resolution.
Actually, no. The only party it calls on to do anything is
Israel.
QUESTION: But there was nothing in there —
MR TONER: And in fact —
QUESTION: — because you told them not to put anything in there that would cause you to veto it.
MR TONER: But that – but again, not at all. And I said we did
not take the lead in drafting this resolution. That was done by the
Egyptians with the Palestinians. But again, in any kind of resolution
process, of course there’s moments where – or I mean, it’s not like our
views regarding settlements or regarding resolutions with respect to
Israel aren’t well-known and well-vetted within the UN community.
There’s been many times in the past where we’ve not – or we vetoed
resolutions that we found to be biased towards Israel. But that’s
another point here is that there’s nothing – the other canard in all of
this is that this was somehow breaking with longstanding U.S. tradition
in the UN Security Council, when we all know that every administration
has vetoed – or rather has abstained or voted for similar resolutions.
Actually, no administration other than the Carter administration has ever called 'settlements' illegal. And no administration has ever called on 'all States'
to
distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the
State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967
That's right. In case you missed it, the Obama administration voted for a resolution that backs BDS.
QUESTION: But it’s true then that you had opportunities to ask them not to bring it forward at all and didn’t take them.
MR TONER: I’m not sure what you’re —
QUESTION: Well, instead of saying why not write the motion this way, you could have said please don’t bring a motion.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think when it was clear to us that
they were going to bring it to a vote and that every other council –
every other country on the council was going to support that resolution,
that draft text —
Since when does a country with veto power have to worry about what 'every other country on the council' is going to do, especially a week before ten of the council's 15 members are about to turn over? Funny that we never hear Russia or China worrying about what 'every other country on the council' is going to do.
But the effort to destroy Israel in the council
goes back much further than Kerry's trip to New Zealand in November. Here's Adam Kredo from the Washington Free Beacon.
Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon
that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a
U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge
that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.
“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a
final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for
months,” Schanzer said.
“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to
spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the
administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian
government some $1.7 billion in cash.
“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active
participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to
try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the
administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in
the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”
And if you're having any doubts whether to believe Schanzer or to believe the Obama-Kerry spin, please consider this.
One veteran foreign policy insider and former government official who
requested anonymity in order to speak freely described senior Obama
administration officials as “lying sacks of shit” who routinely feed the
press disinformation.
A senior congressional aide who is working on a package of repercussions aimed at the U.N. told the Free Beacon the administration is scrambling to provide excuses in response to the breakdown in its own narrative regarding the resolution.
“The administration got caught red handed, and now they’re talking
out of both sides of their mouth,” said the source, who was not
authorized to speak on record. “First they claimed the resolution was
simply not objectionable. Now they say it will actually help advance
peace. These denials only look more ridiculous with each passing day as
new evidence surfaces that the White House was behind this anti-Israel
resolution.”
The Obama administration has been caught several times misleading the
public about its campaign to discredit Israel, including the funding of
an organization that sought to unseat Netanyahu in the country’s last
election, according to one congressional adviser who works with
Republican and Democratic offices on Middle East issues.
All of which leads this Jew to believe that columnist and lawyer Kurt Schlichter is spot-on with this tweet.
Indeed.
Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Kerry, New Zealand, Saeb Erekat, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
An embarrassment
The London Daily Telegraph's Niles Gardiner makes Barack Hussein Obama sorry that he returned that bust of Winston Churchill.
Obama, says Gardiner, is an embarrassment.
But you expect a far higher standard from the US president when he is describing the leader of a close American partner. It demonstrates not only a lack of judgment, but also a disregard for traditional American alliances, something we have seen on numerous occasions with his administration’s treatment of Great Britain. While the Obama presidency has moved with the speed of a tortoise in condemning the beating and killing of political protesters in places like Iran and Syria, it has pounced with panther-like agility in condemning every move Israel makes to build more settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank, as though Israel’s desire to build more homes for its own people is an affront to civilisation. The White House’s rapid condemnation of the Israelis last week was a case in point.
In the meantime, Iran, a rogue state that threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is now agonosingly close to building a nuclear bomb, less than three years after President Obama extended the hand of friendship to Tehran. There is something monumentally rotten about a Carter-esque foreign policy that rewards enemies while giving allies a boot in the face. The president’s shameless mocking of a major friend of the United States whose nation faces the biggest threat in its history, is an embarrassment for the leader of the free world and hardly an example of “smart power".
Indeed.
Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama
Jordan's Abdullah: 'No one' trusts Obama
Barry Rubin flags a
Washington Post interview with Jordan's King Abdullah and says that it's
bad news for the United States and for the West generally.
Here’s how King Abdallah responded to Weymouth’s question, “Do you and other leaders in this area believe you cannot rely on the U.S.?"
He replied:
"I think everybody is wary of dealing with the West....Looking at how quickly people turned their backs on [Egyptian President Husni] Mubarak, I would say that most people are going to try and go their own way. I think there is going to be less coordination with the West and therefore a chance of more misunderstandings."
This is devastating. I'm not shocked that the king thinks that way but I am shocked that he says so openly. In other words he isn't afraid of Obama's being angry and thinks he has nothing to lose because things aren't going to be better. That's how far the situation has deteriorated.
Imagine that instead of going to Jordan (which is also an Arab country in addition to being a pro-American, moderate one) for advice on building the opposition leadership in neighboring Syria, the Obama Administration went to the non-Arab, Islamist Turkish regime!
Jordan is now turning to Saudi Arabia, another country that is no longer relying on Obama, to be its protector and source for financial aid.
Jordan has been the most long-term, consistent ally of the United States in the Arab world, continuously for more than 40 years. Yet the king cannot trust those in the White House any more. They dumped Mubarak, they might dump him.
Read the whole thing.
Assuming that Obama is gone in 2013, it will take years to undo the damage that he has done to the Unites States' allies. And if God forbid he is reelected....
Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Rubin, Jordanian King Abdullah
