Powered by WebAds

Sunday, June 13, 2010

White House denies agreeing to UN Commission on flotilla of fools

The White House has denied a story I blogged just before the Sabbath started that claimed that the United States was going to vote in favor of the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the flotilla of fools incident.
The White House has suggested in the past that it supported international participation in an Israeli investigation, but a shift to the kind of international inquiry supported by many of Israel's critics would be a dramatic one, and a White House official brushed off Kristol's flotation.

The White House pushed, immediately after the incident, to downgrade a planned resolution condmening Israel to a vague presidential statement that didn't directly target the Jewish State.

The White House official said the administration continues to support "an Israeli-led investigation into the flotilla incident that is prompt, credible, impartial, and transparent."

"We are open to different ways of ensuring the credibility of this Israeli-led investigation, including international participation, and have been in intensive talks with our Israeli partners in the past few days on how to move forward," said the official. "We know of no resolution that will be debated at the UN on the flotilla investigation next week."
But Jennifer Rubin says that that White House really would like an international inquiry.
In any other administration this would be unthinkable, as would the kosher-panel remark. But with this team anything is possible. Recall that this week Obama himself spoke about an international board of inquiry. And other sources confirm to me that, indeed, this was Susan Rice’s recommendation. (This may explain why the U.S. was mute when Israel was condemned by the Human Right Council.)

But this brain storm might be a bridge too far, even for timid Democrats on the Hill. So (like the leaks about an imposed peace plan from James Jones meeting with such illustrious characters as Zbigniew Brzezinski), this may be an idea that the Obama administration really, really wants to pursue but doesn’t know if it can pull off. Test the waters, make Israel nervous. Turn up the heat. Show the Arabs what good guys we are. But if the game plan is exposed and a firestorm erupts, well, then — retreat. Deny that was ever the intention and come up with a plan that is less offensive — another “compromise.”
And the Weekly Standard is sticking by its story.
A simple denial would look something like this: "The United States will oppose any UN investigation into Israel."

But the White House didn't say that. It couldn't even muster an official response on the record. Politico originally included a statement from White House spokesman (and friend of THE WEEKLY STANDARD) Tommy Vietor—"We have no idea what Bill Kristol is talking about, and would surmise that neither does he"—but that quote has since vanished from the blog (it can be seen here).

Maybe Tommy had to ask for his quote to be deleted because it was a tad snarky—given that the administration probably is going to end up supporting (or at least yielding to), and cooperating with, and pressuring Israel to cooperate with, a UN investigation.
And House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence slammed the administration for its duplicity on supporting Israel.
“It's not enough for the administration to say that if this vote came up before the Security Council ‘we would vote no.’ They have to actively oppose some sort of a show-trial investigation before the U.N. Human Rights Council that is underway in the U.N. right now. Here are the facts: 33 of the most recent 40 resolutions produced by the Human Rights Council at the United Nations have condemned Israel...This is a moment where the American people who support our most cherished ally, Israel, expect the American administration to actively oppose efforts within the United Nation to engage in this kind of an inquiry.”
What could go wrong?


At 6:43 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Israel can and should say "NO" to such an international investigation. It should go further and disinvite foreign observers to its own panel if the Obama Administration backs UN interference in Israel's domestic affairs.

At 7:08 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

The investigation re the flotilla should be this:

- exact role and involvement of Code Pink and Ayres/Doehrn, their links to the U.S. executive branch, and what did the POTUS know and when did he know it? Did he know about it before it happened and not stop it, or, heaven forbid, did he give a nod to this attack on U.S. ally Israel.

- who is this guy (link below) and is it legal for an ex-marine to join in an attack on a U.S. ally? Was he there representing the U.S.? Isn't there some Logan Act, which says that U.S. citizens can't legally do what this guy did? There is something about an Irish passport, but is he dual or did he renounce his U.S. citizenship? Why hasn't the U.S. military called for a court martial of this guy, extradition, etc. I won't ask why this guy hasn't appeared in the U.S. regular media because we all already know that.


We are underwater at this point, in many ways.

At 8:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


you are watching too much glenn beck

did you know that a former reagan admin official was on the flotilla?

why dont we investigate that?

obama needs to wake up regarding the criminal activities of the hrc...but he did not ok an attack on israel...just the opposite...he knew that the idf was going to stop the flotilla

At 10:01 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

@bacci40, Glenn Beck? I don't watch TV. I listened to Glenn Beck driving through the back country to my kids' sports games a few times. This was some years back and he spooked me excessively, so I stopped listening. It reminded me of driving the stretch of I-5 from south of LA, through San Clemente, then down to San Diego in the '70s at midnight and what was that radio show that spooked me then... I also quit listening to that.

Nope, you would find info on Jodie Code Pink and the Ayers/Doehrn financing all over, inclulding my source, which was the Washington Examiner. And their role in President Obama's career...

BTW if some former Reagan person was on there, then the press should be interviewing him/her and checking for financial links. And since we know the press won't do it, I guess we'll end up having to research foundations with lawyers (or better yet, bloggers! to do the investigating) to see if they can do the press's job.


Post a Comment

<< Home