The Obama administration is stonewalling a Congressional inquiry that's looking into how the 'other $1.3 billion' in ransom money got paid over to Iran.
The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice have all rebuffed a
congressional probe into the circumstances surrounding the $1.3 billion
payment to Iran, which is part of an additional $400 million cash payout
that occurred just prior to the release of several U.S. hostages and
led to accusations that the administration had paid Iran a ransom.
The Obama administration has admitted
in recent days that the $400 million cash delivery to Iran was part of
an effort to secure the release of these American hostages, raising
further questions on Capitol Hill about White House efforts to suppress
these details from the public.
...
The administration is also withholding key details about the payment
from leading members of Congress, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas)
and Mike Lee (R., Utah), who launched an inquiry into the matter earlier this month.
The Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice all failed to respond
to the inquiry by Monday’s deadline, according to congressional sources
tracking the matter.
“The already bizarre circumstances surrounding the $1.7 billion
payment to the Islamic Republic have only gotten stranger in the weeks
since we learned of the $400 million in cash that was sent to the
Iranian regime last January 16th,” Cruz said to the Free Beacon. “If
this payment was, as the Obama administration insists, a
straightforward settlement of an old debt that it would have cost
America more to contest, why all the secrecy?”
The State Department said it does not know how the remaining $1.3
billion was transferred or to whom it was transferred. Cruz described
this disclosure as “confounding.”
...
“While we are deeply concerned about the national security
implications of the administration’s cash-for-hostages scheme,
especially in light of reports that Iran has already arrested additional
Americans, the purpose of this letter is to inquire about the legality
of the payment,” the senators wrote in an Aug. 12 letter.
“It is imperative that the administration provide a full accounting
of its conduct with respect to the $400 million cash payment to Iran,”
they wrote. “If the administration violated the law, then Congress and
the American people should be made aware of it so that they can hold the
appropriate officials accountable and take whatever steps necessary to
strengthen the law and prevent any reoccurrence.”
While the administration has remained silent about the circumstances
surrounding the payment, investigative reporter Claudia Rosett recently disclosed that the Treasury Department transferred just under $1.3 billion to the State Department in 13 “large identical sums.”
The funds, allocated for “foreign claims,” could shine a light on how
the administration moved taxpayer funds into the State Department’s
purview in order to provide the additional payment to Iran.
In 13 individual payments of $99,999,999.99, the Treasury Department
moved a total of 1,299,999,999.87, which roughly amounts to the
remaining money owed to Iran.
The State Department has now confirmed that it deleted a question from James Rosen of Fox News from a December 2013 briefing by Jen Psaki. I first reported the story three weeks ago.
This is from the second link. It's a follow-up to the story about Ben Rhodes orchestrating a campaign of lies to push the Iran nuclear deal forward.
After Samuels’s story kicked up a Washington mediastorm, Rosen asked a
colleague to check for the video of Psaki answering his question about
diplomatic mendacity. The colleague came back with an eerie response:
The exchange was gone from the videotape, replaced by a flash of white
light. The gap was evident not only on the State Department website, but
also on its YouTube page. State Department officials, in a series of
briefings, struggled to explain the matter. Trudeau talked about a
glitch but also noted that there was no evidence that this glitch had
selectively attacked any other embarrassing moments from the press
briefings. Kirby later expressed deep concern about the subject.
Today, Kirby brought the goods:
A
portion of the State Department’s December 2nd, 2013 press briefing was
missing from the video that we posted on our YouTube account and on our
website. That missing portion covered a series of questions about U.S
negotiations with Iran. When alerted to this, I immediately directed the
video to be restored in its entirety with a full and complete copy that
exists and had existed since the day of the briefing on the Defense
Video and Imagery Distribution system website otherwise known as DIVIDS.
I also verified that the full transcript of the briefing which we also
post on our website was intact and had been so since the date of the
briefing. I asked the office of the legal advisor to look at this
including a look at any rules that we had in place. In so doing, they
learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the
briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why
it was made. To my surprise, the Bureau of Public Affairs did not have
in place any rules governing this type of action therefore we are taking
immediate steps to craft appropriate protocols on this issue as we
believe that deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is
not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency
and public accountability. Specifically, we are going to make clear that
all video and transcripts from daily press briefings will be
immediately and permanently archived in their entirety. In the unlikely
event, that narrow compelling circumstances require edits to be made
such as the inadvertent release of privacy protected information, they
will only be made with the expressed permission of the Assistant
Secretary of Public Affairs and with an appropriate level of annotation
and disclosure. I have communicated this new policy to my staff and it
takes effect immediately.
Those are worthy commitments, for the future.
As
for the past, more must be known — though it probably won’t. Followup
questions to Kirby drilled in on the whodunnit aspect of the video
disappearance. Would the department do more investigating to determine
precisely how this happened? No, said Kirby, who noted that the
individual who received the phone request for video elimination doesn’t
remember “anything other than that the caller was passing on the request
from somewhere else in the bureau.” Furthermore, said Kirby, “There
were no rules in place to govern this sort of action, so while I believe
it was an inappropriate step to take, I see little foundation for
pressing forward with a formal investigation.” Spoken like a true
bureaucrat.
In other words, the cow has escaped anyway so why bother checking who was responsible for leaving the barn door open. I'm old enough to recall a President named Nixon who was impeached for similar offenses. He was also forced to resign when the enormity of what he had done came to light as a result of a Supreme Court order that what remained of his tapes be disclosed.
Obama is now in his 8th (and thankfully final) year in office. He will never be impeached. He would never resign even if the enormity of what he did were to come out while he is still in office. He has no shame.
And as a result he has brought shame to America. May he rot in hell.
Rosemary Woods comes to the State Department, doctors press briefing on Iran
How many of you are old enough to remember Rosemary Woods, the Nixon secretary who 'accidentally' erased a critical 18 minutes from the tape of a conversation that took place in the President's office? Woods, who passed away in 2005, has apparently come back to life to work in the State Department.
The Washington Examiner provides a transcript of what the video originally said.
QUESTION: Please, Jen, can we stay on Iran, please?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let's stay on Iran and then we can go to China.
QUESTION: On the 6th of February in this room, I had a very brief exchange with your predecessor, Victoria Nuland —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — about Iran. And with your indulgence, I will read it
in its entirety for the purpose of the record and so you can respond to
it.
"Rosen: There have been reports that intermittently, and outside
of the formal P5+1 mechanisms, the Obama Administration, or members of
it, have conducted direct secret bilateral talks with Iran. Is that true
or false?"
"Nuland: We have made clear, as the Vice President did at
Munich, that in the context of the larger P5+1 framework, we would be
prepared to talk to Iran bilaterally. But with regard to the kind of
thing that you're talking about on a government-to-government level,
no."
That's the entirety of the exchange.
As we now know, senior state department officials had, in fact,
been conducting direct, secret bilateral talks with senior officials of
the Iranian Government in Oman, perhaps dating back to 2011 by that
point.
So the question today is a simple one: When the briefer was
asked about those talks and flatly denied them from the podium, that was
untrue, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I mean, James, I – that – you're talking about a
February briefing, so 10 months ago. I don't think we've outlined or
confirmed contacts or specifics beyond a March meeting. I'm not going to
confirm others beyond that at this point. So I don't know that I have
any more for you.
QUESTION: Do you stand by the accuracy of what Ms. Nuland told
me, that there had been no government-to-government contacts, no secret
direct bilateral talks with Iran as of the date of that briefing,
February 6th? Do you stand by the accuracy of that?
MS. PSAKI: James, I have no new information for you today on the
timing of when there were any discussions with any Iranian officials.
QUESTION: Let me try it one last way, Jen —
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: — and I appreciate your indulgence.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the
preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie
in order to achieve that goal?
MS. PSAKI: James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs
privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that. Obviously,
we have made clear and laid out a number of details in recent weeks
about discussions and about a bilateral channel that fed into the P5+1
negotiations, and we've answered questions on it, we've confirmed
details. We're happy to continue to do that, but clearly, this was an
important component leading up to the agreement that was reached a week
ago.
QUESTION: Since you, standing at that podium last week, did
confirm that there were such talks, at least as far back as March of
this year, I don't see what would prohibit you from addressing directly
this question: Were there secret direct bilateral talks between the
United States and Iranian officials in 2011?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything more for you today. We've long
had ways to speak with the Iranians through a range of channels, some of
which you talked – you mentioned, but I don't have any other specifics
for you today.
QUESTION: One more on Iran?
QUESTION: The Los Angeles Times and Politico have reported that
those talks were held as far back as 2011. Were those reports
inaccurate?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure which reports you're talking about. Are
you talking about visits that the Secretary and others made to Oman, or
are you talking about other reports?
QUESTION: I'm talking about U.S. officials meeting directly and
secretly with Iranian officials in Oman as far back as 2011. The Los
Angeles Times and Politico have reported those meetings. Were those
reports inaccurate?
MS. PSAKI: I have nothing more for you on it, James, today.
You mean the Obama-Kerry State Department lied? Well, I'll be darned....
State Dept Doubles Down on Obama Claim That Kosher Deli Attack Was 'Random'
Under withering questioning by @APDiplowriter (Matt Lee) at Tuesday's press briefing, the @StateDeptSpox puts her foot deeper and deeper into her mouth.
State Department, Rivlin slam Netanyahu for freezing 'Palestinian' funds
State Department spokeswoman Psaki and Israeli President Reuven Rivlin have slammed the Netanyahu government for freezing funds transfers to the 'Palestinian Authority' in retaliation for the 'Palestinians' joining the International Criminal Court.
"This step is one that raises tensions as others do," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, referring to the freeze on revenue transfers to the Palestinian Authority.
...
The PA regularly fails to stand by its agreements, and owes Israel staggering sums, including over 1.4 billion shekels (over $360 million) in unpaid electric bills.
The PA has responded with intransigence, with onetime Palestinian Arab negotiator Saeb Erekat claiming to AFP Saturday that the move itself constitutes a "war crime."
I can't think of any reason why that would be a war crime. Here's Rivlin.
At a closed meeting of more than 30 Israeli ambassadors to Europe, held at the President's Residence in Jerusalem, Rivlin criticized both the PA's unilateral moves and Netanyahu's response, calling it damaging to Israel.
Two envoys who attended the meeting told Haaretz that
"President Rivlin said the Palestinian Authority's application to the
International Criminal Court in The Hague is an attempt by [PA Chairman
Mahmoud] Abbas to evade direct negotiations with Israel and force it
into an agreement on its [the PA's] terms, without any Palestinian
concessions."
Rivlin further criticized the actions of the Palestinians, calling
them a violation of the Oslo Accords, and arguing that the Israeli
government should respond - albeit with careful considerations to aid
Israel's interests, not harm them.
To that end, he noted, "freezing the transfer of Palestinian tax money is not beneficial to us and not beneficial to them."
"The Palestinians sustain themselves with these funds which also keep
the Palestinian Authority functioning. It is in Israel's interest that
the PA will function," Rivlin added.
"I was a lawyer until the age of 48, but I would never file a claim for compensation that would end up hurting me," the two ambassadors quoted Rivlin as saying.
I'd like to hear whether Rivlin has any other suggested responses. If he doesn't, he should sit and be quiet.
State Department: Throwing Molotov cocktails at passing cars doesn't make you a terrorist
Another gem from State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki's Monday press briefing.
QUESTION: In the case of the Palestinian American teenager who
was killed on Friday, are you – do you know the circumstances under
which he was shot?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: There are – okay. The reason I ask is because there
are reports out there that he was throwing Molotov cocktails at cars on a
highway. And I’m wondering, if that is the case, would you have still
been so speedy in putting out a statement and offering your condolences
to the family? The argument that is being made by some in Israel is that
this kid was essentially a terrorist. And you don’t agree with that, I
assume, but I don’t know, so that’s why I’m asking.
MS. PSAKI:Correct, we don’t. I don’t have any more details on the circumstances now.
QUESTION: So you – does that – that would apply even if he was throwing Molotov cocktails?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speculate. I don’t have details to share.
QUESTION: All right. The other thing --
QUESTION: Back to the baby – back to the --
QUESTION: Well, I’ve got – I’ve got to get one more on this
and then I’m done. There is a photograph of this teenager’s – this
teenager being buried today, and he’s wearing a Hamas headband. It was
put on him, obviously. Is that of concern at all to you guys?
MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any more on this particular case.
So according to Psaki, standing at the exit from the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and throwing Molotov cocktails at passing cars is AOK and does not warrant police using deadly force to put a stop to it? Just askin'... Wait, there's more:
QUESTION: To go back to Matt’s question about – were you aware
when you put out the statement on Friday night that there were
allegations that the Palestinian American teenager had been throwing –
our story said a Molotov cocktail and it was – it had run before your
statement came out. So didn’t you – did you know at the time when you
put out the statement that there were allegations that he was engaged in
violence?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there were media reports, Arshad.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Beyond that, I don’t have anything to read out for you.
QUESTION: Right, no. But I just wanted to get on the record
that you knew about those reports when you put out the call for the
speedy investigation.
QUESTION: Matt – I mean Arshad, I’m happy to talk to our team and see if there’s more --
QUESTION: But just to clarify what Matt was saying, and you said – you kind of said something but it was just very short --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- you do not believe that this teenager was throwing Molotov cocktails. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: That’s – I don’t have any more to outline or confirm for you in terms of the circumstances.
QUESTION: No, he said that you don’t believe that to be the case.
MS. PSAKI: That’s not what I said.
QUESTION: Do you? And you said no, you – no.
MS. PSAKI:He asked me if we thought he was a terrorist, and I said no.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
QUESTION: Is that no longer the case? Do you think you were too precipitous, perhaps, in issuing that statement condemning --
MS. PSAKI: I think we’re going to have to move on now.
QUESTION: On Israel, could you talk about
Israel accelerating new settlement units that was just announced today,
and if you – we could just follow on last week. It just seems that
there’s a little bit of acrimony between the U.S. and Israel right now
surrounding the defense minister’s visit, Israel now with these
settlements and what’s going on.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen – they’ve been reports. There
haven’t been an official announcement at this point in time. We’re
certainly deeply concerned by the reports. We are engaging at the
highest levels with the Israeli Government from our Embassy on the
ground to get --
QUESTION: Does that mean the President’s called?
MS. PSAKI: No. We’re – I said on the ground – from our Embassy
on the ground to get more information. And we continue to make our
position absolutely clear that we view settlement activity as
illegitimate and unequivocally oppose unilateral steps that prejudge the
future of Jerusalem. Israel’s leaders have said they would support a
pathway to a two-state solution, but moving forward with this type of
action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace, and that is
certainly a message that we are conveying directly.
In terms of our relationship, the defense relationship, as you know,
remains as strong as ever and the ties between us are unshakable. There
are times when we disagree with actions of the Israeli Government,
including settlements, the issue of settlements, where we have deep
concerns about some of the steps the government is taking. We express
those, but it does not mean that we don’t have a strong and formidable
relationship that continues.
The areas in which Israel approved construction over the weekend - Ramat Shlomo and Har Homa - are nowhere near any 'Palestinians' (okay, they're both near 'Palestinians,' but the areas in which the construction was approved are adjacent to already-existing Jewish housing).
The State Department is hung up on steps that 'prejudge the future of Jerusalem,' but through its opposition to construction in the city, it is prejudging the future of Jerusalem (and of the entire enterprise of a 'Palestinian state') by ensuring that the 'Palestinians' have no incentive to compromise on their zero sum demands. Israel has shown (Gaza disengagement) that it is willing to uproot 'settlements' (although it would need far stronger assurances that real peace is at hand than are currently on the horizon) for even a remote chance of peace. 'Settlements' are not an obstacle to peace. 'Settlements' are the only consequences that might have any hope on having any effect on the recalcitrance of the 'Palestinians.' by declaring 'settlements' 'illegitimate,' the United States ensures that the 'Palestinians' have NO incentive to compromise.
Additionally, the lack of construction has led to an impossible housing crisis in the city in which most construction is luxury construction that is being sold to foreign investors at prices that young couples can only dream about having the money to pay. A storage room with a window and a corner walled off as a bathroom can rent for nearly $1,000 per month in many neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
There's much more that's disturbing in this briefing and I suspect it's only going to get worse as there will be no consequences for Obama's behavior over the next two years and two months after November 4.
Is Givat HaMatos such a big deal? Not in Washington
Shavua tov v'shana tova to all of you - a good week and a good year.
On Thursday, I reported on Prime Minister Netanyahu's reaction to the Obama administration going ballistic again over construction in 'east' Jerusalem. If you thought the article I blogged there was over the top, please consider this one from Haaretz's Barak Ravid.
The latest quandary embarrassed Netanyahu. It destroyed his last
shreds of credibility and gave a strange, almost ridiculous twist to his
speech at the UN and his statement to Obama about integrating the
moderate Arab states in the peace process. The new, strategic idea he
had brought up now seemed like another one of his spins.
President
Obama and his senior advisers go nuts every time they hear the word
settlement. They see Israel’s international isolation deepening and the
Palestinians advancing a unilateral move in the Security Council, while
they have to deal every Monday and Thursday with crises produced by
settlements.
“How do such things help me to help you?” Obama asked
Netanyahu. Obama and his aides cannot understand how Netanyahu thinks
he could advance relations with the moderate Arab states as long as
construction in the settlements continues.
“Those moves not only
poison the atmosphere with the Palestinians, but also with those Arab
states Netanyahu said he wants to build relations with,” said White
House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, shortly after Obama’s meeting with
Netanyahu.
At his meeting with reporters, Netanyahu rejected
Earnest’s criticism, but did not attack Obama harshly or personally. He
used diplomatic clichés to downplay the fiasco. “The tones weren’t
loud,” he said. “The conversation was good and open. I highly appreciate
the president’s attentiveness.”
But it was clear Obama did not
invite Netanyahu to stay for lunch, preferring instead to dine alone
with Vice President Joe Biden. One can only guess who those two gossiped
about.
But Times of Israel's Rebecca Shimoni Stoil, who unlike Ravid lives in Washington, says it's no big deal.
For all the strong language in the Washington statements, according to
insiders here, the administration is not interested in turning the issue
of Israel’s plans to build some 2,600 units on the southeast Jerusalem
hillside into a full-blown crisis.
Veteran Washington Mideast policy folks point
to the fact that during his press availability with Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Barack Obama did not even mention the
word “settlements,” focusing instead on the warm points in the
ties between the two states. Although he was aware of the building plans
– White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed that the two
talked about the topic behind closed doors – Obama chose to ignore the
issue, and was, if anything, unusually amiable in his interaction with
Netanyahu during the late morning event.
If Obama had wanted to make a major issue of
the construction plans, it was well within his ability to discuss it
during the press spot, when the cameras were rolling and Netanyahu would
have been caught in the hot seat. Or he could have issued a statement
in his own name. Or Secretary of State Kerry, who was also at the
Wednesday meeting, could have done so. But they didn’t.
Instead, while the two leaders met, the State
Department and the White House were coordinating strongly worded
statements to be delivered by their spokespeople soon after the White
House talks were completed. The decision was to strike a tone that
contrasted starkly with the good-natured Obama-Netanyahu presser during
the daily scheduled press briefings.
State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki accused
Israel of being two-faced in its policies by describing the building
project as “contrary to Israel’s stated goal of negotiating a permanent
status agreement with the Palestinians,” and later warned that it would
“poison the atmosphere not only with the Palestinians, but also with the
very Arab governments with which Prime Minister Netanyahu said he
wanted to build relations; and call into question Israel’s ultimate
commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”
...
Earnest repeated Psaki’s criticism almost verbatim, warning that “the
step is contrary to Israel’s stated goal of negotiating a permanent
status agreement with the Palestinians. And it would send a very
troubling message if they were to proceed with tenders or construction
in that area.”
The State Department's Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that Prime Minister Netanyahu and US Secretary of State John FN Kerry have not spoken since a phone call ended due to 'communications problems' earlier this week.
Psaki said that Kerry has held discussions over the course of the last day with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, and UN official Robert Serry.
Netanyahu's relations with the Obama administration have historically been rocky, but the disagreements over how to approach the Palestinian issue came into sharper focus during the recent Gaza crisis.
Last week, Netanyahu reportedly reprimanded the US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, admonishing Washington "not to second-guess him again" over policy toward Hamas.
When asked about the quote during a news conference in Tel Aviv on Saturday night, the premier went out of his way to praise the Obama administration for its condemnation of Hamas' violation of the cease-fire last week as well as Washington's funding of the Iron Dome project.
Nonetheless, the administration has also used strong language to condemn Israeli shelling of UN-run schools in Gaza.
The JPost headlined this story as US-Israel ties at new low after Netanyahu-Kerry phone 'disconnect.' They don't back up the headline and I am not convinced the headline is correct, because Israel's relations in the United States are not solely dependent on its relations with the Obama administration.
There's an unspoken perception in Israel - largely backed up by the US media - that Obama is already a lame duck. His poll numbers in the US keep going from bad to worse, and the Republicans could yet control both of Houses of Congress by next January. Be that as it may, with the midterm elections ahead, the Obama administration can do little to harm Israel, at least until November. Right now, Israel's support in the US is solid, and most Americans seem to understand that Israel had little choice but to do what it did. Clearly, after Kerry forced us into the ceasefire last Friday which lasted only 90 minutes, Netanyahu had grounds to tell Shapiro (who actually was much more pro-Israel than his bosses during the recent war) not to second-guess him again when it comes to Hamas.
Sure, there's a lot of personal animosity between Obama and Netanyahu, but we're still a democracy and so is the US. Netanyahu's poll numbers are much better than Obama's.
Oh my... State Dept. praises Abu Bluff and Egypt for cease fire, leaves out Netanyahu
In statement on ceasefire, State Dept spox Psaki praises the govt of Egypt and PA President Abbas. Netanyahu goes unmentioned.
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) August 5, 2014
You have to wonder why they left out Hamas.... Obama likes them better than Israel anyway.
Obama finally gets off golf course, urges Israel not to retaliate, forgets how to say 'Hamas' and 'Palestinians'
President Hussein Obama has left the golf course long enough to urge Israel not to retaliate against the 'Palestinians' for the murder of Eyal Yifrach, Gil-Ad Shaer, and Naftali Frenkel '– who held Israeli and American citizenship.' (I wonder whether Jen Psaki gave him the name). This is from the first link.
US President Barack
Obama expressed his condolences Monday evening to the three bereaved
families: "On behalf of the American people I extend my deepest and
heartfelt condolences to the families of Eyal Yifrach, Gil-Ad Shaer, and
Naftali Frenkel – who held Israeli and
American
citizenship. As a father, I cannot imagine the indescribable pain that
the parents of these teenage boys are experiencing."
He added: "The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms
this senseless act of terror against innocent youth. I also urge all
parties to refrain from steps that could further destabilize the
situation. As the Israeli people deal with this tragedy, they have the
full support and friendship of the United States."
Who committed 'this senseless act of terror' Mr. President? Why aren't you condemning Hamas for committing it? Why aren't you condemning the 'Palestinian Authority' for celebrating it, thereby encouraging the next such act? Why did your State Department earlier today commend Abu Bluff for his 'help'? Why don't you even apologize for the fact that the two prime suspects were both released from Israeli prisons as part of the terrorists for Gilad trade?
Oh wait a minute. That last question ought to be put to Mr. Netanyahu. But you should answer the rest of them Mr. President.
State Dept. spox can't remember name of US citizen kidnapped by Hamas
Here's a clip from Wednesday's State Department briefing in which State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki can't remember the name of the US citizen kidnapped by Hamas.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Israellycool). Transcript and more follow.
Transcript:
QUESTION: Palestinian and Israeli –
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: — issues. As the search for the
three teenagers goes into its sixth day, the Israelis are arresting
hundreds of Palestinians, rounding up some or re-arresting in some cases
many of the ones that were released. They’re having a clampdown, a
lockdown. It’s really causing a very difficult humanitarian condition.
Are you talking with the Israelis to sort of lighten – but I asked you
this yesterday. Are you asking them to lighten up their heavy hand in
their search?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, we’ve been in touch
with both the Israelis and the Palestinians throughout the course of the
last several days since these teenagers were kidnapped. We know this is
a difficult time obviously on the ground. We’ve urged continued
security cooperation between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the
search for the kidnapped teenagers. We were encouraged by President
Abbas’s strong statement to the Arab and Islamic foreign ministers today
in Saudi Arabia. But – and certainly as the search continues and in our
conversations, we urge both sides to exercise restraint and avoid the
types of steps that could destabilize the situation. And that’s a
message that we are conveying in all of our conversations as well.
QUESTION: So it would be more prudent for
the Israelis to sort of search selectively and work and coordinate with
the Palestinians rather than subject the whole Palestinian population to
collective punishment?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our understanding is that there is security cooperation that’s ongoing –
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — and we encourage that to continue.
QUESTION: Well, wait. So I’m going to
re-raise the questions I asked yesterday, which he kind of got – what –
you do not believe at this moment that what the Israelis – that the
Israeli operation to free – to find and free these teenagers is –
amounts to collective punishment of Palestinians in the West Bank? Is
that correct?
MS. PSAKI: Nothing has changed since what I said yesterday.
QUESTION: So no. But you have expressed
concern to the Israelis that – I just want to make sure I understand.
Have you expressed to the Israelis concern that an operation might
become some form of collective punishment?
MS. PSAKI: I would not state it in those
terms. We’ve – know this is a difficult and sensitive time and we’ve
urged both sides to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: In the Secretary’s statement from
Sunday he talked about how there are many signs that point to Hamas
involvement in this.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is that – are you now confident that Hamas is responsible for this, as confident as the Israelis say they are?
MS. PSAKI: No conclusion has been made on
our end since the statement on Sunday, so we remain in the same place we
were in the Secretary’s statement.
QUESTION: So you do not know or you do know that these teenagers are being held by Palestinian militants?
MS. PSAKI: We don’t have any other independent information.
QUESTION: Okay. You said that you had offered assistance to Israel.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Has that happened? Do you know?
And do you know – if it has or even if it hasn’t – what specific kind of
assistance you have offered?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details.
I’m happy to see if it’s been accepted or if there are any specifics
about what we may be able to offer on this front in the search for the
three teenagers.
QUESTION: All right. And then I just want
to draw a fine point of it. Is the U.S. – is the Administration
concerned or not concerned about the Israeli operation and the impact
that it’s having on the Palestinians?
MS. PSAKI: I think we recognize this is an incredibly sensitive –
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — and difficult circumstance on the ground, and we feel all sides should exercise restraint. So –
QUESTION: And thus far you believe that all sides have exercised restraint? Is that –
MS. PSAKI: We wouldn’t say all sides should exercise restraint if we felt all sides were at this point.
QUESTION: Oh. Okay. So which side, or maybe both have not –
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to have much more to add on this particular topic, Matt.
QUESTION: I – well, but it sounds as though
you – you’re not convinced that – it sounds as though you think that
either one side or both sides have been acting without restraint.
MS. PSAKI: I think it’s just important, given the circumstances, that they do moving forward. And I’m going to leave it at that.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about –
MS. PSAKI: Said.
QUESTION: The spokesman for Hamas said
today, to the suggestion that they kidnapped these young Israelis, it’s
stupid. Doesn’t that amount to sort of denying that they have done it?
MS. PSAKI: They may have. There’s obviously
an investigation going on. There’s lots of accusations. I don’t have
any other conclusion from here.
Go ahead, Jo.
QUESTION: Can I ask if you have a privacy waiver for the – one of the teenagers?
MS. PSAKI: We do, yes. So we can confirm that one of the kidnapped was an American citizen.
QUESTION: Which one?
MS. PSAKI: I believe his name has been reported. I don’t have it in front of me right now.
QUESTION: And what is the – is it the
Consulate General in Jerusalem or the Embassy in Tel Aviv that’s
involved in trying to provide consular services to the family and –
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that level of
detail. I’m happy to check and see which entity on the ground is in
touch with the family. But we certainly are.
QUESTION: In your opinion, has Israel taken
advantage of the situation to sort of break – tear down the
infrastructure for this national unity government in its infancy?
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to have much more to add on that front, Said.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: On this at all, I just want to make sure that – yesterday, again, you were asked this question as well.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But there’s – numerous Israeli
officials have said that the U.S. decision to work with and continue to
fund the Palestinian government, the new unity government, is –
contributes – contributed to this incident with the three – is it – am I
correct in thinking that you still would reject such an allegation?
MS. PSAKI: Yes, that is correct.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Do we have a new topic? Are we done?
Say it real slowly Ms. Psaki so that it will sink into your goyishe kop: N-A-F-T-A-L-I F-R-A-E-N-K-E-L.
US urges 'restraint' in search for kidnapped teens, Obama still silent
President Hussein Obama hasn't gotten around yet to condemning the kidnapping of three teenagers by 'Palestinian' terrorists on Thursday night, but his State Department today urged Israel to exercise 'restraint' in searching for them. They wouldn't want to make Hamas uncomfortable or something... (Hat Tip: Red Tulips).
The United States on Wednesday called on both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to "show restraint" as Israel tightened their grip on Hamas hunting for three kidnapped teenagers, AFP reports.
"We recognize this is an incredibly sensitive and difficult circumstance on the ground, and we feel all sides should exercise restraint," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.
...
Psaki confirmed Wednesday that Frenkel is also a US citizen and said US officials had been in touch with his family.
"We urge both sides to exercise restraint and avoid the types of steps that could destabilize the situation," she warned.
The US has been notably quiet about the kidnappings, drawing intense criticism from both Israelis and American Jewry over what many see as a blasé attitude toward the situation.
While President Barack Obama has yet to release an official statement
on the abduction - despite the fact that six days have passed - US
Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the kidnapping on Sunday.
"We are still seeking details on the parties responsible for this
despicable terrorist act, although many indications point to Hamas'
involvement," he said.
"As we gather this information, we reiterate our position that Hamas
is a terrorist organization known for its attacks on innocent civilians
and which has used kidnapping in the past."
"Based on what we know now, we intend to work with this government,"
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters. "We will
continue to evaluate the composition and policies of the new
government, and if needed, we will recalibrate our approach."
Ministers in the new administration, whom Abbas has said would be politically unaffiliated, took the oath of office in a televised ceremony in Ramallah.
Psaki said the Obama administration has no intention of cutting off aid
to the Palestinian Authority, which amounts to roughly $500 million a
year-- pivotal funding for the cash-strapped organization.
The ministers in the government "appear to be technocratic," she said,
adding that the US "will be judging this government by its actions."
US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu by phone moments before Psaki's announcement.
...
US financial aid to the Palestinian Authority through 2014 has already
been appropriated by the US Congress, but not obligated; the State
Department must approve requests for how the funds are spent, and the
PA must file those requests.
Funding for 2015 has not yet been drafted, and already, members of the appropriations committees on Capitol Hill are suggesting a cut in aid because of the deal.
Knesset Member and Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon called recognition of and aid to the new 'government' a moral dilemma.
"You cannot play a game with this, the same way you cannot hide the
fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization," Danon said. "You look at
the wording of the law, it says its not a Hamas appointment but the
involvement of Hamas. And its a moral decision today that the
administration has to make, whether they believe the unity government
is bad and whether they will follow the law."
I would say that the choice that the Obama-Kerry administration made today was an immoral one, because it brings another terror organization in out of the cold. Danon seems to agree.
Danon said the Palestinian Authority would not collapse if the US
cut aid, as the administration has suggested; they have other sources
of funding, the minister said. But "it will make it harder for them,"
he added.
"Very clearly," Danon added, appropriations law from
the US Congress stipulates that, "if there is a unity government with
Hamas, no funding shall be transferred to the PA." Danon also took
meetings at the Pentagon during his visit to Washington.
It sounds like the cow has fled the barn for 2014, but with the 2015 budget and midterm elections coming up, I doubt Congress will appropriate money for these creeps for next year.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take until Mr. Hamdullah gets invited to Washington? I'd say invitation goes out November 5 and carries a date in early December.
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters in
Washington on Friday: “There has been no invitation issued to Prime
Minister Hamdallah.”
A reporter pushed her on the matter and
asked: “So the claim made by this Palestinian official is just plain
false?” Psaki answered: “Correct.”
But lest you get your hopes up, that doesn't mean an invitation won't be issued.
She and US National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan
said that the US has not recognized the new government and is still
waiting for more information on the matter.
“As we have said all
along, we will not make decisions until we see the final formation of
the interim government and have the opportunity to assess and make a
determination about whether this is a government we can work with,”
Meehan told The Jerusalem Post.
“We have been clear
about the principles that must guide a Palestinian government in order
for it to play a constructive role in achieving peace and building an
independent state,” she said.
“Any Palestinian government must
unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence, recognition of the
State of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements and oblgations
between the parties,” Meehan said.
She said that “President Abbas has been committed to these principles.”
He has? That's funny, I thought the 'peace talks' broke up over 'President Abbas' refusal to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state. Silly me.
To shore up their claim for recognition, the Palestinians on
Thursday said that US President Barack Obama has sent a letter to Abbas
affirming Washington’s commitment to reaching a two-state solution.
Although the language used did not mention the unity government, it
still gave the reader the impression that Washington was willing to
work with it.
Several Palestinian news agencies published excerpts from the purported letter.
“As
I emphasized during our meeting, the United States remains deeply
committed to a negotiated outcome between Palestinians and Israelis
that result in an independent, viable and a contiguous Palestinian
state living in peace alongside the State of Israel,” Obama reportedly
said in his letter. “I am hopeful we can continue to work closely
together to achieve this goal and further strengthen the bonds between
our two peoples.”
Meehan said in response that “the letter was a
standard protocol thank-you letter from the gift exchange during
President Abbas’s visit to Washington in March. The letter was not new,
and had no language discussing the interim government.
So who's lying and isn't it sad that we even have to ask? Well, here's my bet. Sometime after November 4, 2014, an invitation will be issued to Rami Hamdallah or whoever is the 'President of Palestine' to visit Washington and/or meet with President Hussein Obama - regardless of whom Hamdallah or someone else represents, and regardless of whether or not any pious platitudes have escaped the collective mouth of the Hamas-Fatah unity government.
AP's Matt Lee hits Jen Psaki on Kerry's apartheid comments
At Monday's State Department press briefing, the AP's Matt Lee hit State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Secretary of State Kerry's apartheid comments. Psaki owned them and warned that 'many' have used similar terms to describe Israel's future.
Let's go to the videotape.
Someone needs to get Matt Lee the figures on the true population of Israel (Jews v. Arabs) and how there really is no demographic threat to the future of Israeli democracy.
In the meantime, the rest of the Obama administration has gone silent on Kerry's comments.
Speaking with The Jerusalem Post, multiple officials in the
Obama administration declined to either defend or condemn the most
recent remark. Members of his team believe that kernels of truth exist
in his controversial statements— that, should a two-state solution fail
to come to pass, efforts to undermine Israel's legitimacy may be
emboldened, and Israel's Jewish population might come to rule a majority
of Arabs and Palestinians in its borders.
His communications
staff has made a concerted effort to discipline the secretary's message:
the State Department maintains that, without peace, Israel will
struggle to remain both Jewish and democratic.
But Kerry has, on several occasions, diverged from that message, to the frustration of his aides.
And American Jewish groups have condemned Kerry's statement across the board.
All
major American Jewish or pro-Israel organizations weighed in on the
reported comments, including the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, with a rare statement released on Monday.
"Any
suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state
is offensive and inappropriate," the AIPAC statement read. "Israel is
the lone stable democracy in the Middle East, and protects the rights of
minorities regardless of ethnicity of religion."
Israel Radio had an interview this evening with a government official who said that Kerry isn't anti-Israel but has gone overboard with love for Israel. Kerry wants his Nobel peace prize and he wants an 'achievement' as Secretary of State. The Obama administration believes that Israel is low-hanging fruit - we're the only foreign country who pays attention to them and who cares at all about what they have to say. But they hate us and treat us with contempt. This administration cannot come to an end soon enough.
State Department places ball in 'Palestinian' court
The State Department's press briefing is still going on, but in response to questions by the persistent Matt Lee, spokeswoman Jen Psaki has placed the ball in the 'Palestinian' court for continuing negotiations.
Let's go to the videotape. This is a live broadcast....
I'm still waiting to see what happened on the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation today, but here's Matt Lee embarrassing State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Tuesday.
Let's go to the videotape.
You just know this will be a campaign commercial if Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
