Powered by WebAds

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Real change in US foreign policy?

Greetings from Boston, where I landed yesterday morning. A brief post and then back to work.

The Washington Post is reporting that the entire senior executive level at the State Department has resigned, apparently out of fear of what might happen in a Trump administration. Keeping in mind that most of the senior echelon in the State Department is Arabist, this may be good for Israel, notwithstanding reporter Josh Rogin's obvious discomfort with it.
[Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.
Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Kennedy will retire from the foreign service at the end of the month, officials said. The other officials could be given assignments elsewhere in the foreign service.
In addition, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr retired Jan. 20, and the director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, Lydia Muniz, departed the same day. That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people.
“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”
All I can think of when I hear about the State Department securing diplomats is Benghazi, although that was clearly Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's fault, and not that of the State Department bureaucrats.

More encouraging is the fact that 'Palestinian' chief negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat is expressing  'shock' at President Trump's silence on Israeli 'settlement building.'
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman announced the approval of 2,500 housing units in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, in order to accommodate the housing needs of the residents and to return their daily routine to normal.
The announcement followed the approval earlier this week of 566 new housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramat Shlomo, Ramot and Pisgat Ze'ev.
While the United Nations and the European Union were quick to condemn the new construction, White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Tuesday declined to express a position on Israeli construction when asked about it in his daily press briefing.
"Israel continues to be a huge ally of the United States," Spicer said, when asked about Trump's perspective on the Israeli plan to implement the construction plans.
"He wants to grow closer to Israel to make sure it gets the full respect in the Middle East," he continued. "We'll have a conversation with the prime minister."
Responding on Wednesday to the White House refusing to comments, Erekat told AFP, "We used to hear condemnations, we used to hear American positions saying '(Israel) should stop settlement activities, it's an obstacle to peace.'"
"Not commenting, does that mean that President Trump is encouraging... settlement activities? We need an answer from the American administration," he added.
Life has sure changed for the 'Palestinians,' hasn't it? If they don't get to the table and negotiate (for real) soon without preconditions, there's not likely to be much left to negotiate about. This whiny series of diagrams regarding future Israeli building plans in Jerusalem appeared in Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily (HaAretz). If all of these plans go through, Jerusalem will thankfully be surrounded with Jewish children.

All of this follows on the heels of yesterday's news that the first act of the Trump-Tillerson State Department was to place a hold on the $221 million parting gift that former President Hussein Obama attempted to give the 'Palestinians' and that one of President Trump's first executive orders would suspend aid to the United Nations or any of its agencies if they recognize a 'Palestinian state.'

Much of this is, of course, a reversal of Obama administration policy implemented during the last administration's first days in office. But if it lasts, the world will be a very different place four or eight years from now.

Messiah's times?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

Congress to freeze State Department funding until embassy moves to Jerusalem

In yet another slap in the face to President Hussein Obama, the Washington Free Beacon reports that the Republican-controlled Congress is freezing State Department funding until the US Embassy to Israel moves to Jerusalem.
A delegation of Republican senators is moving forward with an effort to freeze some funding to the State Department until the U.S. embassy in Israel is formally moved to Jerusalem, according to new legislation.
...
The effort is being spearheaded by Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), and Dean Heller (R., Nev.), all of whom support efforts by the incoming Trump administration to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem after years of debate.
“Jerusalem is the eternal and undivided capital of Israel,” Cruz said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s vendetta against the Jewish state has been so vicious that to even utter this simple truth—let alone the reality that Jerusalem is the appropriate venue for the American embassy in Israel—is shocking in some circles.”
“But it is finally time to cut through the double-speak and broken promises and do what Congress said we should do in 1995: formally move our embassy to the capital of our great ally Israel,” Cruz said.
The legislation orders the White House to identify Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which the Obama administration has refused to do. The bill will freeze a significant portion of the State Department’s funding until it completes the relocation.
In the past, the Obama White House has been caught scrubbing captions on official photographs that labeled Jerusalem as part of Israel. The administration also was entangled in a Supreme Court case when it refused to permit an American family to list its child’s birthplace as “Jerusalem, Israel.”
Heller said the legislation could help repair America’s relationship with Israel, which has become strained under the Obama administration.
Mark January 20 on your calendars. That's the date US-Israel relations make a significant change for the better.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 06, 2016

Priorities! State Department ignores Syria, blasts Israel for giving Jews in Samaria a place to live

The self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' has blasted the Government of Israel for attempting to resettle the Jews of Amona, a neighborhood in Ofra (Samaria), in an alternate location in Samaria.
The statement, signed by Mark Toner, deputy spokesman for the State Department, drew an unusual linkage between the signing of the defense aid agreement with Israel and criticism of settlement building.

Toner stressed that the U.S. views advancement of the plan as a violation of a commitment by Netanyahu's government not to establish any new settlements in the West Bank.

The White House later further escalated the criticism, as Josh Ernest said that the decision constitutes a violation of a commitment undertaken by the Israeli government to the U.S. administration, adding that this isn't how friends behave.

"We had public assurances from the Israeli government that contradict this new announcement – so when you talk about how friends treat each other – this is also a source of concern. There is a lot of disappointment and great concern here at the White House," he said.

The criticism comes against the backdrop of the Civil Administration Planning Commission's decision last Wednesday to approve a plan for the construction of 98 housing units in the new settlement to be established next to the Shvut Rachel settlement.

According to the plan, it will be possible to build up to 300 housing units and an industrial zone. The NRG web site and Channel 2 were the first to publish the decision. The new settlement, which settlers say is only a neighborhood of the existing settlement of Shvut Rachel, can provide housing for residents of the illegal outposts of Amona, who are expected to be evicted by the end of December.

A senior U.S. official said that the White House boiled with anger at the advancement of the plan and even more at the timing of the decision – just a week after the signing of the military aid agreement by which the U.S. will give Israel $38 billion for a decade, and the day of the death of former president Shimon Peres, whose funeral was attended by President Barack Obama.

A large part of American anger was due to the administration seeing the step as a violation of a commitment Netanyahu gave Obama in 2009 that Israel would not build any new settlements. In his speech at Bar-Ilan that year, Netanyahu said he agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and added: "The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements."
And in the seven years since the Bar Ilan speech, there have effectively been NO negotiations. At some point, life has to move on.

Ironically, the best thing that could happen for the 'peace process' would be for the 'Palestinians' to actually feel they are losing something by not coming to the table. Nothing else has even a remote chance of bringing them to the table.
The statement was unusual both in its length of more than 300 words, and in content, using strong language to express U.S. objections to advancement of the plan.

"We strongly condemn the Israeli government's recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank, State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said.
Still waiting to hear Obama 'strongly condemn' Assad, let alone do something about him. But priorities man, priorities.

And then the State Department dug deeper.
One of the statement's clauses referred to the defense aid agreement. Its wording was most extraordinary, for through the years the U.S. has avoided creating any linkage between defense aid to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the settlement construction issue.

"It is deeply troubling, in the wake of Israel and the U.S. concluding an unprecedented agreement on military assistance designed to further strengthen Israel's security, that Israel would take a decision so contrary to its long term security interest in a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians," Toner added.

The State Department's statement also referred to the timing of the decision – the day of former President Shimon Peres' death, saying:

"Furthermore, it is disheartening that while Israel and the world mourned the passing of President Shimon Peres, and leaders from the U.S. and other nations prepared to honor one of the great champions of peace, plans were advanced that would seriously undermine the prospects for the two state solution that he so passionately supported."
So we owe it to Peres' 'legacy' to create his virtual state on an island and jump into the sea? How absurd!

Read the whole thing.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Manchurian money transfer

Greetings from Paris. I'm on my way home.

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.
All of this reminds me of some of the other mysteries of the Manchurian candidate Barack Hussein Obama. His birth certificate. His college transcript. Obamacare's 'after we pass the bill, you can read the bill.' The 'secret negotiations' (and the doctoring of a State Department press briefing about them) and secret agreements with Iran. There's a pattern here and it's not a pretty one. It's a pattern of dishonesty. And it's a pattern that's being continued by Hillary Clinton.

When will it end?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

US Senate Subcommittee confirms: Obama sent US taxpayer money to Israel in bid to unseat Netanyahu - UPDATED AND PURGED EMAILS PROVING IT

During Israel's 2015 Knesset elections, a group called V15 attempted to mount a 'grass roots' challenge to Prime Minister Netanyahu. V15 was staffed by Obama campaign staff and financed by Obama supporters (or so we thought) S. Daniel Abraham, the billionaire founder of the Slim Fast food line, Daniel Lubetzky, a social entrepreneur whose OneVoice Movement is partnered with V15 and Alon Kastiel, a Tel Aviv-based businessman and owner of multiple local venues, including bars, clubs and hotels.

Almost immediately, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) and Congressman Lee Zeldin (R-NY) sent a letter to Secretary of State Kerry asking whether media reports that US taxpayer money was being used by V15 to unseat Netanyahu were true.

Today, we have an answer to that question. Under the auspices of Chairman Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) has released a report today confirming allegations that an NGO with connections to President Obama’s 2008 campaign (that would be Lubetzky's One Voice, which partnered with V15) used U.S. taxpayer dollars attempting to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015. This is from Jennifer Rubin.
A press release states:
Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), released a bipartisan report examining the U.S. State Department’s grants to OneVoice—a non-governmental organization operating in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.  The group received nearly $350,000 in grants from the U.S. State Department to support peace negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinian Authority over a 14-month grant period ending in November 2014.  In December 2014, Israeli elections were called following the collapse of peace negotiations.
The Subcommittee’s investigation concludes that OneVoice Israel complied with the terms of its State Department grants. Within days after the grant period ended, however, the group deployed the campaign infrastructure and resources created, in part, using U.S. grant funds to support a political campaign to defeat the incumbent Israeli government known as V15.  That use of government-funded resources for political purposes after the end of the grant period was permitted by the grant because the State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that campaign resources could be repurposed in that manner or place limitations on the post-grant use of resources.
McCaskill tried to put the best face on it.
"While this report shows no wrongdoing by the Administration, and should put to rest such allegations, it certainly highlights deficiencies in the Department’s policies that should be addressed in order to best protect taxpayer dollars.”
Really? No wrongdoing in using US taxpayer dollars to unseat the democratically elected Prime Minister of an ally? I must have been asleep in my Constitutional Law class when they said that was okay.

Through a spokesman, Portman had a different view.
The campaign’s explicit goal was to elect “anybody but Bibi [Netanyahu]” by mobilizing center-left voters. . . .
The State Department permitted One Voice to use a taxpayer-funded grant to build valuable political infrastructure—large voter contact lists, a professionally trained network of grassroots organizers/activists, and an impressive social media platform—for the putative purpose of supporting peace negotiations. But during the federal grant period, OneVoice devised a plan to target Prime Minister Netanyahu; immediately after the grant period ended, OneVoice deployed its taxpayer-funded campaign resources to launch the largest anti-Netanyahu grassroots organizing campaign in Israel in 2015. Despite OneVoice’s known history of political activism in Israel, the State Department did nothing to guard against the clear risk that OneVoice could engage in electioneering activities using a taxpayer-funded grassroots campaign infrastructure after the grant period. Remarkably, according to the State Department, OneVoice’s conduct was fully compliant with Department regulations and guidelines.
And I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and to hear that both the White House and the State Department enthusiastically approved OneVoice's activities.

But wait. There's more.
Among the report’s most damning findings, evidence was found that the “durable campaign resources” built during the grant with taxpayer dollars included “a larger voter contact database, a professionally trained network of grassroots activists across the country, and an enhanced social media presence on Facebook and Twitter. OneVoice was even permitted to use State Department funds to hire an American political consulting firm called 270 Strategies — run by Obama 2008 campaign veterans — to train its activists in how to execute a ‘grassroots mobilization’ campaign.”
Can't wait to hear all the lemmings tell us how this is the 'most pro-Israel administration evah.' UNbelievable.

PS For those wondering why I am up at this hour even though I'm in Israel.... I got counterparty comments and client comments on an agreement between 11:00pm and Midnight  and the client asked that I read his comments and call. That's all for tonight....

UPDATE 1:47 AM

Sorry - not all for tonight. The State Department purged the emails that proved it. This is Adam Kredo.
A senior State Department official admitted to congressional investigators that he deleted several emails pertaining to the administration’s coordination with OneVoice.
“The State Department was unable to produce all documents responsive to the Subcommittee’s requests due to its failure to retain complete email records of Michael Ratney, who served as U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem during the award and oversight of the OneVoice grants,” the report states.
Investigators “discovered this retention problem because one important email exchange between OneVoice and Mr. Ratney … was produced to the Subcommittee only by OneVoice,” the report continues. “After conducting additional searches, the Department informed the Subcommittee that it was unable to locate any responsive emails from Mr. Ratney’s inbox or sent mail.”
Ratney was ultimately forced to tell investigators that “[a]t times I deleted emails with attachments I didn’t need in order to maintain my inbox under the storage limit.”
While Ratney had the option to archive emails—as required by the department—he did not do this. Ratney claimed he was not aware of the rule, stating he “did not know [he] was required to archive routine emails.”
The deletion of the email chains appears to be a violation of the Federal Records Act, which mandates official records be archived for future disclosure purposes.
Note - this is on John Kerry's watch and not on Hillary Clinton's. Yes, John Kerry is just as corrupt as Hillary Clinton.
One source with intimate knowledge of the situation told the Free Beacon that the deletion of these emails is highly suspicious given the seriousness of the claims about the administration’s behavior.
“The Obama administration had the money, skills, and personnel to build a gigantic campaign infrastructure that was used to try to defeat the prime minister of an ally,” the source said. “But apparently they didn’t have what they needed to store the emails in which they did all of those things. That’s certainly a lucky break for the State Department.”
State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he could not comment on the accusations due to the department’s inability to thoroughly review the Senate’s report.
“We’ve not had time to go through it closely, so I’m not going to be able to comment on specifics,” Kirby said. “But I would note that the report makes clear there’s no evidence that OneVoice spent State Department grant funds to influence the Israeli election. Again, I just don’t have additional comment at this time.”
Even McCaskill admitted that OneVoice spent US government funds to influence the Israeli elections. She just claimed it didn't show 'wrongdoing.'

Kirby is a damned liar. And so are his bosses.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

The message to the 'Palestinians' is clear

If you were expecting State Department spokesman John Kirby to say something about terror attacks in Israel last week, you were disappointed with Tuesday's State Department briefing. Here's the sum total of what they had to say about Israel.
QUESTION: Do you have a comment on the Israeli settlement construction announcement?
MR KIRBY: We’re aware of reports that the Government of Israel intends to advance plans for hundreds of housing units in Israeli settlements in the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem. If it’s true, this report would be the latest step in what seems to be a systematic process of land seizures, settlement expansions, and legalizations of outposts that is fundamentally undermining the prospects for a two-state solution. We oppose steps like these, which we believe are counterproductive to the cause of peace. In general, we’re deeply concerned about settlement construction and expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and the design – and the – I’m sorry, the designation of land throughout the West Bank for exclusive Israeli use.
As the Quartet report highlights, since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993, the population of settlements has more than doubled, with a threefold increase in Area C alone. Currently, there is at least 570,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Moreover, approximately 100 settlement outposts in Area C have been built without formal Israeli Government approval, making them illegal even under Israeli law. Again, as the Quartet report makes clear, these actions risk entrenching a one-state reality and raise serious questions about Israel’s long-term intentions.
QUESTION: Given that you raise the idea of this as a systematic process of land – land expropriation or land seizures or however you put it, what is the U.S.’s systematic response beyond just saying this is bad every time? Do you have a systematic approach to counteracting this trend that is blocking peace, in your opinion?
MR KIRBY: Our approach has been consistent throughout. First of all, calling it like we see it and not being afraid to do that; having tough discussions with Israeli leaders about this and being willing to continue to do that; working inside the Quartet, and the Quartet report addresses this pretty clearly as I just said; as well as working with other members of the international community to try to see if we can advance a two-state solution.
QUESTION: Do you – do you – the way I understood it was this is a response to the violence. Do you see the notion of settlement expansion as a consequence of violence as an appropriate countermeasure?
MR KIRBY: Look, I’m – I really am loath to get into analyzing cause and effect here in terms of connecting that particular dot. We’re obviously deeply concerned about violence and we condemn the recent attacks. There’s – and we’ve said this before – no justification for terrorism, no justification for the violence, no justification for the taking or maiming of innocent life. And so we’re going to continue to look for leaders in the region to do what they need to do, take the affirmative steps that are required, and act – demonstrate leadership to take down the tensions to reduce the violence to get us to help create the conditions for a two-state solution. That doesn’t change, however, at all our opposition to settlement activity, which we believe is illegitimate.
QUESTION: I have a last one, tangentially related. The wife of a man killed in a West Bank attack was an American citizen. I think the car was shot at and it was just another American – I think it might have been Hebron – another American who almost died in this case. Are you having conversations with the Palestinians about the rising American death toll in this wave of violence?
MR KIRBY: Obviously, we’re – any death and any injury is significant when it results from this sort of violence. And so our conversations with leaders on both sides are about, again, taking steps to reduce the violence so that innocent people can go about their lives – all innocent people can go about their lives.
Okay, so the last question mentioned Chavi Mark (whose husband Rabbi Mickey Marc HY"D was murdered last Friday), but it didn't mention Hallel Yaffa Ariel HY" (May God Avenge her blood).

There was NO condemnation from the State Department - and certainly none from Hussein Obama.

And then there was a little more, but still no condemnation:
QUESTION: Do you think that that --
QUESTION: But your first job’s to protect Americans --
MR KIRBY: And we take that very --
QUESTION: -- and there are --
MR KIRBY: And we take that very seriously.
QUESTION: Well, a lot – there’s been several now, I think, killed in this wave of violence --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- more than in a lot of places where you have --
MR KIRBY: We take that – no, we take that very seriously, but --
QUESTION: -- deeper engagement.
MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to --
QUESTION: Even military engagement in some places.
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to detail the specifics of diplomatic discussions we may be having on this. I can tell you obviously we take that responsibility very seriously. But more broadly speaking, we want to see all innocent life protected.
QUESTION: And do you think that the Palestinian attackers are attacking Americans on purpose? Do you think that they are targeting Americans?
MR KIRBY: As I said, I’m not going to analyze each and every specific act here from the podium, Said.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on Brad’s question, do you ask the Palestinians to investigate whether there’s actually been deliberate attacking or deliberate targeting of Americans?
MR KIRBY: We want – first of all, we want the attacks to stop.
QUESTION: Right, I understand. But things that have already taken place.
MR KIRBY: And obviously – obviously we would – we – and we’ve said this before – we welcome thorough, complete investigations on these matters, transparent investigations by all sides. But I’m not going to get into a discussion of each and every one.
QUESTION: According to the Israeli press, the Palestinian Authority is getting ready to cut off all relation with the Quartet because they feel that the report was completely biased towards Israel. First of all, are you aware of these reports? And second, are you having a conversation with the Palestinians on this very issue?
MR KIRBY: I think what we’ve seen is a PLO statement that takes issue with some aspects of the Quartet report, and that’s our understanding, is that this is more a statement of their concerns and objections to the report itself. And as I said last week, we fully expected that there would be objections, that there will be concerns, that not everybody would like everything that they read in there. But I’ll say it like I said last week – I’ll say it again – both sides had input and we valued – welcomed and valued that input.
QUESTION: Okay.
Again, no condemnation of 'Palestinian' terrorism.

And in case you missed it, look at Kirby's opening statement.
MR KIRBY: I have some comments here at the top that I want to make, certainly regarding what happened over the weekend. We strongly condemn the recent spate of deadly terrorist attacks that have been focused on civilians, including women and children, and which have brutally taken hundreds of lives from Istanbul to Dhaka to Baghdad to the attacks in Saudi Arabia. These acts have shown no respect for human life, whether young or old, male or female, Muslim or non-Muslim. These terrorists murdered without discretion. We cannot say whether these attacks were coordinated or whether they were conducted by independent opportunists. As you know, investigations are still ongoing, and I’m not going to get ahead of those processes. I’d refer you to those countries to talk about it.
But what we do know is that the goal of these attacks was to attract attention and to spread terror and to spread fear. They occurred during and at the end of Ramadan, the holiest time of the year for Muslims. Indeed, a Daesh spokesman himself called for targeting during this very holy month. So what’s obviously evident is that Daesh certainly has no respect for Muslim life, life in general, or any respect for Islam itself.
Notice what's missing (added emphasis is mine).

Bottom line: No condemnation of the terror attacks against Jews. The message to the 'Palestinians' is clear.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, June 02, 2016

US State Department: 'So we lied'

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.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

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.

Let's go to the videotape.

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....

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

.@APDiplowriter takes on State Department spox on state sanctions against Iran

In case you haven't heard yet, the State Department sent letters to all 50 US State Governors that apparently demand that they suspend any remaining sanctions that the States have against Iran.

At the State Department briefing on Monday, the AP's Matt Lee took on State Department spokesman John Kirby regarding the letters.

Much of the rest of this comes from an email I received from The Israel Project's Omri Ceren.
More than two dozen U.S. states have sanctions against Iran. Different states established their sanctions for different combinations of reasons: nuclear work, terrorism, human rights violations, ballistic missiles, etc. For example the Illinois law cited Iran's "support [for] international terrorism," the California law cited terrorism plus "egregious violations of human rights," the New York law cited both of those plus "unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles," and so on. [a][b][c].
Earlier today Bloomberg View revealed that the Obama administration has sent letters to all 50 governors suggesting that states will need to review their Iran sanctions as a result of last summer's nuclear deal. The letters were prompted by paragraph 25 of the deal, which requires the federal government to "take appropriate steps" against state laws that may prevent "the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA."
Associated Press reporter Matt Lee raised several questions about the letters in today's press briefing with State Department spokesman Kirby. The full video is below (the exchange runs from about 4:30 to 9:10), but there are two specific questions which Kirby declined to definitively answer.
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.



Here are those two questions:
1. Are states being asked to dismantle non-nuclear sanctions? - This question is potentially problematic for the administration. The JCPOA is supposed to be a nuclear agreement that provides relief from only nuclear sanctions in exchange for concessions on only nuclear work. But state-based sanctions are based on concerns related to both Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear behavior. If the administration pushes states to dismantle their sanctions, they'll be providing Iran with non-nuclear relief in excess of the deal, but if they don't push states to dismantle their sanctions, Iran will claim the U.S. is violating the deal's paragraph 25 requirements.
Kirby wouldn't provide a definitive answer. First he suggested that non-nuclear sanctions weren't being discussed, then Lee pushed for an explicit clarification, then Kirby added that states would get pushed on anything that conflicted with the JCPOA:
LEE: All right. Last one. Does it mention anything about sanctions that state and local authorities might have put in place against Iran for reasons other than non -- other than nuclear reasons?
KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.
LEE: So it only applies to nuclear-related sanctions?
KIRBY: And the JCPOA specifically, yes.
2. Will the administration take states to court to try to force them to dismantle sanctions? - This question is also potentially problematic for the Obama administration. If it taked states to court, it might very well lose. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA) provides states with the authority to divest from Iran so long as any U.S. sanctions - not just nuclear sanctions - remain in place in response to Iranian behavior [d]. A few months ago Rep. DeSantis introduced legislation that would tighten up CISADA in order to further bolster states' sanctioning authority regarding Iran [e]. Last December both the Senate and the House reaffirmed bipartisan congressional support for state and local sanctions against Iran: H.Con.Res.100 (introduced by Rep. Roskam and cosponsored by Reps. Deutch, Lipinski, Pompeo, Sherman, and Zeldin) and S.Con.Res.26 (introduced by Sen. Kirk and cosponsored Sens. Manchin and Rubio) [f] [g].
This time Kirby simply punted:
LEE: Right. But so, would the administration be willing to take state and local governments to court to force their compliance with what it believes to be this...
KIRBY: I won't engage in a hypothetical.
Earlier today, the New York Times announced that it opposes a bill introduced by Senators Kirk and Rubio to try to 'fix' the Iran deal.  It may yet be an interesting summer on Capitol Hill.... The Obama administration is likely to agree with the Times.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, March 31, 2016

The next US Secretary of State?

Say it isn't so. Could this actually be the next US Secretary of State (Hat Tip: Barak Ravid)?
Egypt's Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry met during his visit to Washington Wendy Sherman, an adviser to the US Democratic Party's presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton, the foreign affairs ministry announced on Thursday.
The Egyptian foreign ministry spokesperson Ahmed Abu Zeid stated that during the meeting Sherman listened to Shoukry's evaluations of political and economic developments taking place in Egypt, the country's regional and international relations, as well as the country's efforts to fight terrorism.
"The meeting reflected the mutual wish to enforce Egyptian-American relations if Hillary Clinton wins the US presidential elections," the foreign ministry statement read.
Sherman noted that she was ready to transfer any message from the Egyptian side that would enforce the US's relationship with Egypt to Hilary Clinton, Abu Zeid said in the statement. 
The name Wendy Sherman should ring a bell to all of you. A nuclear bell. In 1994, the Clinton administration signed a deal that it claimed would stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. The deal was negotiated by Wendy Sherman, the same Democratic party hack who was the chief concessionaire to Iran. North Korea abrogated the agreement when it felt able to do so, and has gone on to test nuclear weapons. Iran has participated in North Korea's nuclear tests.

Sherman is a total incompetent who was in way over her head. Even the Obama administration has no confidence in Sherman, who is nothing but a hack. (Look how many times they sent John Kerry to Vienna during the Iran negotiations). Here's Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal nearly three years ago.

In 1988, the former social worker ran the Washington office of the Dukakis campaign and worked at the Democratic National Committee. That was the year the Massachusetts governor carried 111 electoral votes to George H.W. Bush's 426. In the mid-1990s, Ms. Sherman was briefly the CEO of something called the Fannie Mae Foundation, supposedly a charity that was shut down a decade later for what the Washington Post called "using tax-exempt contributions to advance corporate interests."
From there it was on to the State Department, where she served as a point person in nuclear negotiations with North Korea and met with Kim Jong Il himself. The late dictator, she testified, was "witty and humorous," "a conceptual thinker," "a quick problem-solver," "smart, engaged, knowledgeable, self-confident." Also a movie buff who loved Michael Jordan highlight videos. A regular guy!
Later Ms. Sherman was to be found working for her former boss as the No. 2 at the Albright-Stonebridge Group before taking the No. 3 spot at the State Department. Ethics scolds might describe the arc of her career as a revolving door between misspending taxpayer dollars in government and mooching off them in the private sector. But it's mainly an example of failing up—the Washingtonian phenomenon of promotion to ever-higher positions of authority and prestige irrespective of past performance.
This administration in particular is stuffed with fail-uppers—the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the national security adviser, to name a few—and every now and then it shows. Like, for instance, when people for whom the test of real-world results has never meant very much meet people for whom that test means everything.
Two years ago, Sherman accused Israel of making the Iran talks 'harder.'
In what appeared to be a warning to Israel, she said the United States hopes no one will interfere with the talks.
"We don't enter these talks with rose-colored glasses and we don't know yet if we can resolve this diplomatically," Sherman said, according to Haaretz.
"It will be critical that our negotiators and partners have the space to get this done diplomatically. The talks with Iran will be very hard and we can't afford to make it even harder."
Haaretz also quoted her as having stressed that Iran’s nuclear program would have to be "limited, discreet, constrained, monitored and verified." [All the things that it clearly isn't in 2016. CiJ]
If the Iranian nuclear enrichment program does not meet these conditions there will be no agreement, Sherman added.
She noted that the United States "would like there to be zero enrichment" but that is an "unlikely" expectation.
From social worker to Secretary of State? What could go wrong?

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, March 28, 2016

US State Department to American citizens: 'Stay home'

The always helpful Jerusalem consulate has passed on yet another warning to US citizens to stay home.

Worldwide Caution

Last Updated: March 3, 2016
The Department of State is updating the Worldwide Caution with information on the continuing threat of terrorist actions and violence against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. Current information suggests that ISIL, al-Qa’ida, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, and other terrorist groups continue to plan terrorist attacks in multiple regions. Recent terrorist attacks, whether by those affiliated with terrorist entities, copycats, or individual perpetrators, serve as a reminder that U.S. citizens need to maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. This replaces the Worldwide Caution dated July 29, 2015.
In August 2014, after the United States and regional partners commenced military action against ISIL, ISIL called on supporters to attack foreigners wherever they are. Authorities believe there is a continued likelihood of reprisal attacks against U.S., Western, and coalition partner interests throughout the world, especially in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Asia.
U.S. citizens continue to be at risk of kidnappings and hostage events as ISIL, al-Qa’ida, and their affiliates attempt to finance their operations through kidnapping-for-ransom operations. U.S. citizens have been kidnapped and murdered by members of terrorist and violent extremist groups. ISIL, al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are particularly effective with kidnapping for ransom and are using ransom money to fund their activities.
Extremists may use conventional or non-conventional weapons and target both official and private interests. Examples of such targets include high-profile sporting events, residential areas, business offices, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, public areas, shopping malls, and other tourist destinations both in the United States and abroad where U.S. citizens gather in large numbers, including during holidays. In the past year, major extremist attacks occurred in countries including Tunisia, France, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, and Mali.
U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure. Extremists have targeted and attempted attacks on subway and rail systems, aviation, and maritime services.
U.S. citizens considering maritime travel also should review information at the websites of the National Geospatial Agency, the Maritime Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard for information related to maritime and port security globally. Current areas of concern include the Caribbean, Gulf of Guinea, Horn of Africa, and the Straits of Malacca and Singapore ‎as a result of maritime crimes including smuggling, human trafficking, and piracy.
The information provided below offers select regional or country examples. Please check travel.state.gov for additional information.
EUROPE: Credible information indicates terrorist groups such as ISIL and al-Qa’ida and its affiliates continue to plot near-term attacks in Europe. All European countries remain vulnerable to attacks from transnational terrorist organizations.
European authorities continue to warn of the possibility of attacks conducted by lone individuals inspired by extremist organizations that could occur with little to no warning. Extremists have targeted large sporting events, theatres, open markets, aviation services, transportation systems, and public venues where people congregate. Authorities believe there is a high likelihood terror attacks in Europe will continue as European members of ISIL return from Syria and Iraq. European governments are taking action to guard against terrorist attacks; however, all European countries remain potentially vulnerable.
MIDDLE EAST and NORTH AFRICA: Credible information indicates terrorist groups also seek to continue attacks against U.S. interests in the Middle East and North Africa. The U.S. government remains highly concerned about possible attacks against U.S. citizens, facilities, businesses, and perceived U.S. and Western interests. Private U.S. citizens are strongly discouraged from traveling to any country to join in armed conflict. U.S. citizens are reminded that fighting on behalf of or providing other forms of support to designated terrorist organizations, including ISIL, can constitute the provision of material support for terrorism, which is a serious crime that can result in penalties including prison time and large fines.
In Syria, the security situation remains dangerous and unpredictable as a civil war between government and armed anti-government groups continues throughout the country. Groups such as ISIL, al-Nusrah Front (ANF) and al-Qa’ida operate there. In recent years, Westerners have been kidnapped and several have been killed by terrorist groups in Syria.
U.S.-designated terrorist groups operating in Lebanon include Hizballah, ISIL, ANF, Hamas, and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades (AAB). U.S. citizens have been the target of terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the past, and the threat of anti-Western terrorist activity remains.
In Iraq, ISIL controls significant territory in northern, western, and central Iraq, and continues to attack Iraqi security forces and civilians in those areas.
In Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, groups affiliated with ISIL, Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and other terrorist groups have conducted attacks against both foreign and local targets.
In Yemen, the security situation has deteriorated greatly since 2014, necessitating the suspension of operations of the U.S. Embassy in February 2015. Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIL remain threats to U.S. citizens in Yemen.
AFRICA: Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and al-Murabitun remain active in northern Mali and Niger, and recently conducted major attacks in Mali and Burkina Faso in which U.S. citizens were killed. Terrorist groups have stepped up their rhetoric, calling for additional attacks or kidnapping attempts on Westerners and others, particularly those linked to support for international military intervention.
The terrorist group AQIM has declared its intention to attack Western targets in the Sahel (an area that stretches across the African continent between the Atlantic Ocean and the Red Sea to include Senegal, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Chad, Sudan, and Eritrea). It has claimed responsibility for kidnappings, attempted kidnappings, and the murder of several Westerners throughout the region.
Al-Shabaab assassinations, suicide bombings, hostage taking, and indiscriminate attacks in civilian-populated areas are frequent in Somalia. Al-Shabaab retains its demonstrated capability to carry out attacks in government-controlled territory in Somalia and in neighboring countries such as Kenya and Djibouti.
Boko Haram, an extremist group based in northeast Nigeria, has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks, mainly in northern Nigeria. Boko Haram also has targeted women and children for kidnapping, reportedly kidnapping women in northern states for marriage as “slave brides.” Boko Haram has carried out attacks in Cameroon’s Far North Region, western Chad, and southern Niger, targeting foreign expatriates, tourists, and government leaders.
SOUTH ASIA: The U.S. government assesses terrorist groups in South Asia may be planning attacks in the region, possibly against U.S. facilities, citizens, and interests. The presence of al-Qa’ida, Taliban elements, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, indigenous sectarian groups, and other terrorist organizations, many of which are on the U.S. government's list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, poses a potential danger to U.S. citizens in the region.
Although the Government of Pakistan maintains heightened security measures, particularly in the major cities, terrorist attacks have occurred against civilian, government, and foreign targets. Attacks have included armed assaults on heavily guarded sites, including Pakistani military installations and airports. Terrorists and criminal groups also have resorted to kidnapping for ransom.
No province in Afghanistan should be considered immune from violence and crime, and the strong possibility exists throughout the country for hostile acts, either targeted or random, against U.S. and other foreign nationals at any time. Taliban and other extremist organizations remain active in every province of the country and frequently target both Afghan government and foreign interests.
India continues to experience terrorist and insurgent activities which may affect U.S. citizens directly or indirectly. Anti-Western terrorist groups active in India include Islamist extremist groups such as Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Indian Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Lashkar-e Tayyiba. Past attacks have targeted public places, including some frequented by Westerners, such as luxury and other hotels, trains, train stations, markets, cinemas, mosques, and restaurants in large urban areas.
Since September 2015, Bangladesh has experienced a series of increasingly sophisticated violent attacks. These include the murders of two foreign nationals, as well as bombs and other attacks against gatherings of religious groups and security forces. ISIL publicly claimed credit for many of these attacks. Additionally, groups claiming to represent al-Qa’ida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) asserted responsibility for a series of threats and terrorist attacks targeting writers, publishers, and others in the media, including the murder of a U.S. citizen blogger.
CENTRAL ASIA: Supporters of terrorist groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, al-Qa’ida, and the Islamic Jihad Union remain active in Central Asia. These groups have expressed anti-U.S. sentiments and may attempt to target U.S. government interests.
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC: Information from credible sources suggests that there is a continued risk of armed terrorist and criminal groups operating and planning attacks against foreigners, including U.S. citizens, in the East Asian and Pacific region. Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and the Abu Sayyaf Group, have cells operating throughout Southeast Asia and JI is linked to al-Qa’ida and other regional terrorist groups.
There is a risk of travel to the southern Philippines, specifically related to kidnapping threats in the Sulu Archipelago and the ongoing threat of violence on the island of Mindanao, particularly in Central Mindanao. Foreigners in the Eastern Sabah province of Malaysia are also targets for kidnappings for ransom. Criminal or terrorist bands may attempt to intercept boats ferrying tourists in the area as well.
Indonesian counterterrorism efforts have prevented terrorists from conducting large-scale attacks in recent years. The January 14, 2016, attack in central Jakarta, however, shows that extremists in Indonesia still have the ability to carry out small-scale violent attacks.
U.S. government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert. These facilities may temporarily close or periodically suspend public services to assess their security posture. In those instances, U.S. embassies and consulates will make every effort to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens abroad are urged to monitor the local news and maintain contact with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.
For further information:

Labels: ,

Google