Comedy gold: Obama's favorite reporter interviews John Kerry
It doesn't get much sillier than this. @JeffreyGoldberg interviews @JohnKerry, who describes the deal that guarantees that Iran will be a nuclear armed state as '
pro-Israel.'
Kerry rejected criticism from Israel,
and from many in the American Jewish community, that by publicly
warning Israel that it will be further isolated internationally if the
deal should be rejected, he has encouraged scapegoating of the Jewish
state: “If you’ve ever played golf, you know that you yell ‘fore’
off the tee,” he explained. “You’re not threatening somebody, you’re
warning them: ‘Look, don’t get hit by the ball, it’s coming.’”
Kerry believes that a congressional rejection of the deal will lead
to war—he explains his theory of his case in detail below—and he finds
the “visceral” and “emotional” criticism of the deal in Israel, and
among many of Israel’s supporters, flummoxing. “I’ve gone through this
backwards and forwards a hundred times and I’m telling you, this deal is
as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets,” Kerry said. “And I
believe that just saying no to this is, in fact, reckless.” When I
asked him how he interprets Israeli criticism of the deal, he said there
is a “a huge level of fear and mistrust and, frankly, there’s an
inherent sense that, given Iran’s gains and avoidance in the past, that
somehow they’re going to avoid something again. It’s a visceral feeling,
it’s very emotional and visceral and I’m very in tune with that and
very sensitive to that.”
Though he says he is in tune with this set of Israeli fears, he does
not endorse a view widely shared by Israelis—and by many Americans—that
Iran’s leaders, who have often said that they seek the destruction of Israel,
mean what they say. “I think they have a fundamental ideological
confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that
translates into active steps to, quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know ...” Here I
interjected: “Wipe it off the map.”
Kerry continued: “I don’t
know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me—they’ve
got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of
choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had
enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where
they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place
where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that
debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”
They didn't make the bomb when they had enough material for 10-12 (which only happened during the Obama administration by the way), because they figured why become a pariah when a little bit of patience will let you do it with the 'international community's approval.
In the meantime, three senior Jewish Democrats - including the highest ranking Jew in the House - have all come out against the deal (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The highest-ranking Jewish Democrat in the House announced his
opposition to the nuclear accord with Iran on Tuesday, in a blow to the
Obama administration’s lobbying efforts.
"I'm going to vote
against the Iran deal," Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) — the former head of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — told Newsday.
"I
tried very hard to get to yes. But at the end of the day, despite some
positive elements in the deal, the totality compelled me to oppose it.”
In
addition to Rep. Israel, Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Ted Deutch
(D-Fla.) also came out against the deal on Tuesday, saying that the
multinational agreement did not include enough safeguards to prevent
Iran from cheating on its commitments or limit it from supporting
extremist groups such as Hezbollah.
“After a decade in public life
working to stop Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, I cannot
support a deal giving Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief — in
return for letting it maintain an advanced nuclear program and the
infrastructure of a threshold nuclear state,” Deutch wrote in the
Broward County Sun Sentinel.
So it's not just the Israelis who are opposed.
Kerry's flippant attitude toward this really grates. In a lot of ways, he's even more irritating than Obama.
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that
you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said.
“This”—a congressional rejection—“will be the ultimate
screwing.” He went on to argue that “the United States Congress will
prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming
back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a
suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to
negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be
his point.”
Unbelievable.
Labels: American Jews, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry, Nita Lowey, Steve Israel, Ted Deutch
She may be a Democrat but her head seems to be on straight
Westchester County's
Nita Lowey may be all that stands between Barack Obama and aide to the Hamas-Fatah 'unity government.'
While many of the names of House and Senate leaders have been bandied
about, most Congressional sources arguably agree that the most
important lawmaker is Rep. Nita Lowey,
the ranking Democrat from Westchester County, NY. Lowey sits on both
the full Appropriations Committee and the key subcommittee governing
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. Foreign assistance
begins and dies in this subcommittee. The Republican side of the aisle
has been lining up staunchly against continuing funding and invoking the
mandatory legal brakes. This includes subcommittee chairwoman Kay
Granger from Dallas, who has asserted that unification “puts in jeopardy
future U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority.”
The Obama Administration, however, has signaled it is ready to continue funding the new Hamas-infused Palestinian Authority.
Therefore, all eyes now fall on Lowey. For her, this is a leadership
moment. Will she break with her party and the Administration?
Lowey’s personal and legislative feelings have been made abundantly
clear. “At this point, the law is clear, their actions are clear, and
the path forward is clear,” Rep. Nita Lowey told the JTA news
service immediately after news of the Hamas union became known in late
April.
Monday, June 2, after the unification ceremony finished in
Ramallah, Lowey issued this short warning: “I am deeply disappointed
with the announcement today of a Palestinian government that includes
the terrorist organization Hamas. As long as Hamas rejects the Quartet
principles and the existence of the State of Israel, United States
funding for this unity government is in jeopardy.”
Early June 4, 2014, a source close to Lowey confirmed her feelings
remain unchanged, Indeed, within 10 seconds of asking, he emailed this
reporter the relevant section of one of several key legal bars to
continued funding. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, in Section 7020,
Subsection F, entitled Prohibition to Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization,
unambiguously declares: “None of the funds appropriated … may be
obligated or expended for assistance to Hamas or any entity effectively
controlled by Hamas, any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a
member, or that results from an agreement with Hamas and over which
Hamas exercises undue influence.”
The Lowey source explained, “The law is clear-cut, but what makes it
complex is there are also important considerations – are we subjecting
ourselves to more danger? For example, is there a particular security
assistance program? Should we stop that? Or, is it smarter to keep some
of those of those programs going?” The staffer conceded the notion of a
drastic cut with carve-outs for special security programs. However, the
source added, “The Administration seems to be ‘all systems go’” in terms
of unrestricted funding.
Lowey is now posed between the law and common sense on one hand, and
her own party and extenuating circumstances on other hand. “Rep. Lowey
appreciates the important considerations on all sides,” the source
stated. “But, also, this law it is written that way for a reason, and
this law has been agreed to by the overall majority of Congress and
signed in to law by the President.”
There are presidential override provisions, “but that formal procedure has not yet been invoked,” the Lowey source assured.
Will Lowey stand up to Obama? She just might.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Nita Lowey, US foreign aid
Democrats warn 'Palestinians' to return to talks
Democrats in Congress, including Gary Ackerman, Nita Lowey and Charles Rangel (yes, that's him front and center in the picture) have warned the 'Palestinian Authority' that they may
find themselves cut off if they don't back off their statehood gambit.
Speaking at a gathering of Congressmen and leaders of Jewish organizations outside the United Nations headquarters in New York, Rep. Gary Ackerman, member of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, stressed that "There may need to be a total cutoff of all aid to the Palestinians for pursuing this course of action which is very dangerous and ill advised."
"If they’re willing to consider putting their future in the hands of the United Nations, perhaps they should think about how much aid their friends at the United Nations will provide to accompany whatever meaningless, one-sided UN resolution they might pass," said Ackerman.
"They should think twice, reverse course and get back to the negotiating table where Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu awaits them,” he concluded.
Congresswoman Nita Lowey called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' actions a counter-productive publicity stunt, saying he is not interested in peace. "They [the Palestinians] have not been forced into this position, and the circumstances are not beyond their control. They have chosen to discontinue negotiations with Israel and pursue a counter-productive publicity stunt." she said.
"Abu Mazen’s [Abbas] speech made clear he’s not interested in peace. Peacemakers are not obstinate, cynical, incendiary, and inflammatory. Peacemakers take constructive – not destructive – actions toward the goal of peace."
Lowey suggested Abbas' actions warrant a strong U.S. response. "His action cross a line and should lead to a reevaluation of U.S. assistance for the Palestinian Authority," she said.
U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said the U.S. Administration is still waiting for the Palestinians' "official response", despite comments made by members of the Palestinian delegation that suggest the Quartet's proposal does not meet their demands.
Hmmm. Maybe the Representatives are trying to put some daylight between themselves and Obama on Israel.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Charles Rangel, Gary Ackerman, Nita Lowey, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Key House Committee sends warning letter to Abu Bluff
Representatives Kay Granger (R-Tx) and Nita Lowey (D-NY), the Chair and ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on state, foreign operations and related programs, which controls foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, have sent a letter to
'moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen, warning of an
aid cutoff due to the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
“We have been strong supporters of aid to the Palestinian Authority in the hopes of ensuring prosperity, stability, and peace for the Palestinian people and all people in the region,” the two lawmakers stated. “However, our ability to support current and future aid would be severely threatened if you abandon direct negotiations with Israel and continue with your current efforts.”
...
The response from Ms. Granger and Ms. Lowey is stronger than the response from the Obama administration or the European Union, which is the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority.
Administration officials on Thursday said they would not support the Fatah-Hamas unity government unless it commits to principles spelled out by the so-called Quartet, a group comprising the United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union that looks to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those conditions include recognition of prior agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
European Union officials on Thursday said they would study the Palestinian proposal.
At least someone is answering those 3:00 am phone calls.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Kay Granger, Nita Lowey
Congress lifts hold on weapons sales to Lebanon
I mentioned in an earlier post that Representatives Howard Berman (D-Cal) and Nita Lowey (D-NY)
lifted their holds on the provision of military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces on Friday.
Congressman Howard L. Berman, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, today released the following statement on lifting a hold on military assistance to Lebanon:
"On August 2, I placed a hold on a $100 million spending plan for military assistance for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) out of concern that this plan did not reflect changing political realities in Lebanon. The following day, August 3, a shooting initiated by the LAF on its southern border, resulting in the needless death of an Israeli soldier, further complicated the situation; Israeli restraint prevented that situation from getting out of hand.
"In response to our hold, the Administration initiated a thorough, inter-agency review of its military assistance program for Lebanon. I have been fully briefed, in a classified setting, on the results of that review. As a result, I am convinced that implementation of the spending plan will now have greater focus, and I am re-assured as to the nature and purposes of the proposed package. I also understand that the LAF has taken important steps to prevent recurrence of dangerous and provocative actions like that which occurred August 3. I have also been given reason for confidence that assistance to the LAF has not fallen into the hands of Hezbollah and that every possible measure is being taken by Lebanese and American authorities to prevent that from happening. As a result of these assurances, I am lifting the hold on the $100 million spending plan for the LAF.
"I continue to be concerned about developments in Lebanon, and I will continue my ongoing discussions with State regarding the optimal contours of future military assistance for Lebanon. Some of the key elements of the current package are not yet ready for actual delivery to the LAF and will be further notified to Congress prior to actual delivery. We will, of course, further assess the situation at that time."
The Jerusalem Post has a statement from
Lowey's staff:
“The administration gave detailed briefings and provided thorough, written responses to Congresswoman Lowey’s questions and concerns about the assistance and safeguards in place to prevent it from falling into terrorists’ hands,” a Democratic congressional staffer said of Lowey’s decision to lift the hold on Friday.
“Improving Lebanon’s ability to defend its borders, stop arms trafficking, build institutions and fight terrorist elements is imperative to the security and stability of the region.”
And the Wall Street Journal adds
this statement from the State Department.
"We reviewed our assistance to Lebanon and concluded that it is vital, given ongoing challenges to the Lebanese state from Hezbollah and others," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Friday.
Remember what happened to all the weapons that the US supplied to Fatah when Hamas took over in 2007? Look for the same thing to happen in Lebanon between the LAF and Hezbullah. Trust me on this.
Labels: Hezbullah, Howard Berman, Lebanese Armed Forces, military assistance, Nita Lowey
