Beyond the Cusp

January 23, 2015

Obama Deceit and Vindictive Contempt Erupts Even Further

Filed under: Administration,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Apocalypse,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Armed Services,Ayatollah,Azerbaijan,Blood Libel,Borders,Breakout Point,Building Freeze,Cabinet,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Conflict Avoidnce,Congress,Coverup,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Executive Order,Fascism,Fordo,Government,Hamas,Hamas Charter,Hate,Herzog,History,Holocaust,IAF,IDF,International Politics,Intifada,Iran,Iranian Military,Iranian Pressure,IRGC,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Israeli Interests,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jihad,Jihad,Judea,Judean Hills,Labor Party,Land for Peace,Leftist Pressures,Meaning of Peace,Middle East,Military,Moshe Yaalon,Mossad,Muslim World,Netanyahu,North Korea,Nuclear Program,Nuclear Scientist,Nuclear Sites,Nuclear Weapons,Old City,Oslo Accords,P5+1,Palestinian Pressures,Parchin,Peace Process,PLO,Prime Minister,Promised Land,Qom,Response to Terrorism,Russian Pressure,Samaria,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secular Interests,Tel Aviv,Temple Mount,Terror,The Twelfth Imam,United Nations Presures,United States Pressure,Uranium Enrichment,World Opinion,World Pressures,World Without Zionism or America,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 3:01 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

One has to wonder if there actually is no limit to the perfidy, dishonesty and betrayal by the White House in their double-dealings with Israel and particularly with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is no secret that President Barack Hussein Obama reserves a special visceral hatred towards Israel and most of her leadership. This has come to the fore repeatedly and has now boiled over with what borders on treasonous misrepresentation and direct meddling in just the past week. There was the insistence by Martin Indyk who demanded that since Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was invited by the leadership in the United States Congress to address them and share with them his reservations and any pertinent information which he may think the Congress should include in their deliberations pertaining to the Iranian nuclear program and the possibility and wisdom for applying additional sanctions at this time that the Congress must also invite Labor Party leader Yitzhak Herzog to address them in an attempt to be fair considering that Israel is heading for elections on March 15th. Mr. Indyk did not also believe that any other of the party leaders be invited including even Tzipi Livni who would be sharing the Prime Minister position should the combined Labor Party with her Hatnua Party nor did they suggest the somewhat of an outside but viable candidate for the position from the Jewish Home Party, Naftali Bennett. The singling out of the Labor Party leader and placing him on an even level of importance to the current Prime Minister reeked of partisan politicking and interference with the Israeli elections. It would have been the equivalence of the Knesset having invited Mitt Romney to address them along with requesting President Obama to have addressed them on a sensitive and vitally important issue months ahead of the 2012 elections. Israel had immediately extended an invitation to President Obama before the 2012 elections upon being informed that candidate Romney was planning on visiting Israel, an invitation the President chose to decline and then spokespersons from the Democrat Party then claimed that the visit by Romney was an Israeli attempt to sway the Jewish vote away from President Obama and that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had endorsed Romney which the Prime Minister had gone to extreme lengths to assure the media that he did not favor one candidate over the other and was ready and willing to work with either candidate when the elections were over. But all of this pales when compared to the latest revelations which are on a par with some of the other select betrayals by the White House over the last six years.

 

Over the last couple of days a source from the White House released information claiming that the head of the Mossad Tamir Pardo had during a private briefing with a select group of United States Senators at their request disclosed his disagreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu and that he was opposed to the Congress passing additional sanctions on Iran as such a move would disturb any possibility for diplomacy to work. The high level leaked news story was reported by Bloomberg News which stated that Mossad officials advised US senators who were visiting Israel recently to hold off on further Iran sanctions, saying that they would hamper, not help, efforts to persuade Iran to give up or allow full international supervision of its nuclear program. This was a rather alarming report which was claiming that the Prime Minister and the Mossad were at odds over support for the intention of Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Republican Senator Mark Kirk to impose stricter sanctions on Iran if a nuclear deal is not reached by March, a timetable that has already been extended for a second time this one past the reset November deadline from the original June deadline, a postponement which put off any agreement until after the midterm elections. The top level Mossad briefing was given during a meeting with Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, along with fellow Republican Senators Lindsay Graham, John Barrasso, and John McCain, and Democratic Senators Joe Donnelly and Tim Kaine. Senator John Barrasso was the person quoted by Bloomberg News as stating that they “met with a number of government officials from many different parts of the government. There’s not a uniform view there.” The quote did not claim as to where the dissenting opinions were given to the Senators and definitely did not present such as coming from Mossad Head Tamir Pardo. Still, a statement from the White House was quoted claiming that Mossad Head Tamir Pardo was the source of the dissenting opinion from the known position against much of the seeming weakness demonstrated by the White House in their negotiations with Iran and their seeming inability to force concessions from the Iranians as well as an eager willingness to alleviate much of the sanctions pressures from further pressing Iran just as the stronger sanctions were beginning to show some real progress.

 

The reactions from both the Prime Minister’s Office, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steintz, senior government source and from the Mossad all disputing the fraudulent claims from the White House and expressing disdain and feelings of injury and the breaking of trust and decency by these fraudulent mischaracterizations expressed by the Americans. A senior source expressed vehemently the distrust which these misrepresentations had caused stating, “The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz.” He relayed how the minutes had been gone over numerous times in order to positively discern whether there might have been anything stated which may have led to a misunderstanding and no such possible statements had been recorded in the minutes. The senior source went further protesting that any such comments were released about a private and secure conversation stating, “Leaking the Mossad Head’s statements, even if they had not been falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules. Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret meeting must not leak out.”

 

A spokesperson Mossad added officially, “The Head of Mossad did not say that he opposes additional sanctions on Iran.” This was in response to the United States White House claims that Mossad officials advised United States Senators visiting Israel to hold off on further Iran sanctions claiming that such sanctions could hamper rather than help the United States efforts to persuade Iran into giving up their nuclear weapons program while pressing for Iran to permit the full implementation of international supervision over the entirety of their nuclear program. The agency further claimed, “The Head of Mossad did not say that he opposes additional sanctions on Iran.” Furthermore, the Mossad released an official statement which read, “Mossad Head Tamir Pardo met on January 19, 2015, with a delegation of United States Senators. The meeting was held at the request of the senators and with the Prime Minister’s approval. At the meeting, the Head of Mossad stressed the extraordinary effectiveness of the sanctions that have been placed on Iran for several years in bringing Iran to the negotiating table. The Head of Mossad noted that in negotiating with Iran, a policy of ‘carrots and sticks’ must be adopted, and there are not enough ‘sticks’ nowadays.” The Mossad concluded stating that Mossad Head Tamir Pardo “said specifically that the agreement that is being formed with Iran is bad and could lead to a regional arms race.” The Head of the Mossad could not be in any greater agreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the claims of and differences were erroneous and an attempt to place distrust in both the Mossad and the Prime Minister for reasons which only the White House is aware. Whether their intent was to muddy the waters before Congress by implying that the Israelis were divided on the issue of sanctions on Iran or that the Prime Minister was demanding actions not supported by the intelligence agency and against the information gathered and presented him or whether this was an attempt to bolster the campaign of the opposition by presenting the Prime Minister as being unreasonable and over the top and being out of step with all information and especially of causing difficulties between Israel and the United States, the actual reason will remain unknown but hopefully the record stands corrected.

 

What makes this attempt to paint Prime Minister Netanyahu as out of step with the rest of the universe and not just the White House and President Obama by implying that the briefing given visiting United States Senators by the Mossad was contradictive of the position represented by the Prime Minister was bad enough if it was the only perfidy and treachery coming from the White House which has compromised Israeli positions over Iran at every turn over the past six years. The one instance which sticks out as potentially the most significant betrayal by President Obama and the White House goes back to a report in Foreign Policy on Line on March 28, 2012 which detailed the rumored agreement between Israel and Azerbaijan whereby Israel would have obtained the right to use four abandoned, Soviet-era airfields should the Israelis need such for refueling or for emergency landing should the Israelis strike the Iranian nuclear sites. The initial prospect of Israel and Azerbaijan having reached some amount of agreement on the use of airfields for an Iranian attack was first made public in December of 2006, when retired Israeli Brigadier General Oded Tira angrily denounced the George W. Bush administration for their lack of action on curbing the Iranian nuclear program. The availability of rights to use these airfields is of vital importance for Israel as they would provide an alternative such that the Israeli F-15 and F-16 attack aircraft would not have to perform mid-air refueling at some point in their flight likely both just before entering Iranian airspace and soon after departing after their potential need to burn fuel in order to avoid or engage Iranian forces from wither ground fire or air combat during their strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The making even the slightest chance of such an agreement exploded the Muslim world such that after the report of the potential agreement Azerbaijan was forced to deny any dealings with the Israelis and definitely were not permitting any use of their airfields, airspace or any other Azerbaijani facilities or assets for any reason, let alone an Israeli strike on neighboring Iran. The leaking of the cementing of this deal ended that possibility for Israel to militarily target the Iranian nuclear facilities. A similar leak killed an agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia which terminated another avenue with which Israel could have potentially struck the Iranian nuclear sites thus setting Iran back hopefully decades if not longer.

 

These betrayals by the White House under President Obama almost appear as if they have been working with Iran to give them the needed funding and cover from Israeli interference or attack in order to guarantee that Iran realize their aim of attaining nuclear weapons capability and potentially be given the time to build up a sizeable arsenal of deliverable nuclear weapons. In a USA Today article on February 28, 2013 the theory that the latest nuclear bomb test carried out by North Korea was not a weapon of indigenous production but was rather an Iranian device tested by North Korea in order to prevent affirming the Western World, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations as well as European nations worst nightmare of an Iranian bomb. Unlike the previous nuclear devices tested by North Korea, this was not a plutonium bomb such as the previous two North Korean tests but rather an enriched uranium device similar to what the Iranians have been working towards. The reason Iran might desire testing their device in North Korea boils down to two main reasons, first so as to not affirm beyond and plausible deniability that they have mastered the production of a nuclear device and secondly that they do not as of yet have a test facility within their borders while North Korea has a fully functioning test facility and both nations have cooperated before on rocket and missile technology and likely also their nuclear weapons expertise. The additional fact that there was a full complement of Iranian nuclear physicists and engineers present at this nuclear weapons test makes the case for the origin of the device as having been Iran. Such would mean that President Obama’s lifting of nearly half of the sanctions on Iran was a direct response to their already having developed nuclear weapons and now sanctions were useless in the mind of President Obama. Having failed to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear bomb production capability, President Obama felt that it was no longer necessary to continue the strict sanctions on Iran. Should this be an actually honest assessment which is completely valid, then the lessening of the sanctions was the exact opposite to what was necessary as the loosening of the sanctions gave the Iranians the immediate funding to now produce a few hundred of such bombs. Perhaps this was part of the reasoning behind the last two extensions of the final date for reaching an agreement as President Obama is granting Iran all the time they need to produce sufficient nuclear arms to utilize in whatever manner benefits Iran the most. Even considering such an eventuality should send cold shivers up the spine of even the most hardy and strong of those amongst us as I know it does me.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

October 9, 2013

Do These Furloughs Reveal Obama’s True Foreign Policy Agenda

We have all witnessed how many of the furloughs and shutdown closures have been used more as a war on the public in order to make the shutdown actually an inconvenience but otherwise these actions have appeared petty and almost juvenile. When you seek to assign blame for whatever consequence of the government shutdown has just collided with your plans affecting your life there is an easy rule of thumb in determining where to place that blame. Simply determine which department of the government is responsible for providing the services or servicing the area which you have found is closed. If the department is among those which fall under the President’s Cabinet, then the Administration most likely chose to close off that service or area. The prime example is the Park Service which is completely under the auspices of the President. So, every National Park or monument which has had its access restricted or terminated was a choice made by someone within the Administration and not by the Congress. Truthfully, most of the areas which fall under the auspices of the Congress are extremely unlikely to conflict with the average person’s life surprisingly enough. The Congress has furloughed a fair number of workers which is why some Representatives and Senators are likely lost in the vast halls of the Capital Building and associated office buildings because the assistants who pushed the buttons on the elevators for them and who actually had learned where the many meeting rooms and other necessities, including the correct floor for each and every of the 535 members of Congress’s offices have been furloughed. Don’t be too harsh on our esteemed Congressional representatives as they likely have far weightier problems on their minds than to waste their immeasurable mental capabilities memorizing room locations or what floor their offices are located. The vast majority of workers furloughed which fall under the control of Congress would largely be their own staffs both in Washington and back in their home district or state. The rest would be the legions of support personnel within the office complex and Capital Building including interns, pages, message carriers and the like. Thus, the majority of furloughed personnel which are likely, however slight the possibility, to affect anything the average citizen does on their regular schedule of activities has most likely been furloughed by the Administrative Branch of our government and have been selected under some arbitrary set of rules which emanated from the White House through the separate department heads and Cabinet appointees.

 

All of that be as it may, there has been one set of furloughed personnel which were somehow, through a form of logic which entirely escapes reason, classified as unessential personnel. Perhaps I have my priorities all jumbled-up but I would have placed the work of this particular office extremely high on my list of essential personnel as this office is responsible for some vital policy enforcements. I am referring to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control which was ordered to furlough all but 11 of its 175 full-time employees. Presidential spokesperson James Carney was quoted pointing to this “meaning that the office is unable to sustain its core functions.” The Office of Foreign Assets Control’s work includes issuing new sanctions designations against “those enabling the governments of Iran and Syria, as well as terrorist organizations, WMD proliferators, narcotics cartels and transnational organized crime groups” which has now been impeded. This office is also tasked with enforcement, investigations of sanctions violations and offers penalties, issuing licenses for humanitarian activities, and issuing new sanctions prohibitions. Mr. Carney refused to comment as to whether or not the furloughed personnel would result in any lessening in the enforcement of the sanctions against either Syria or Iran. Wendy Sherman, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported, “Our ability to do that, to enforce sanctions, to stop sanction evaders, is being hampered significantly by the shutdown.” She subsequently added, “Let me assure you that we will continue to vigorously enforce the sanctions that are in place as we explore a negotiated resolution, and will be especially focused on sanctions evasion and efforts by the Iranians to relieve the pressure.”

 

Administration spokespeople continue to claim that every furloughed Federal Employee was the direct result of Republican actions and that the Administration has absolutely no discretion or alternatives to the various furloughs and respective shutdowns. They claim that they have carefully applied the furloughs with the effort to make the shutdown have the least disruptive consequence to the operation of the government as a whole. But as the numbers of government employees who were necessarily furloughed there were some unavoidable compromises which will affect the operations of government departments and sectors. Somehow looking at their choice to do such direct and extreme harm to the enforcement of international sanction I cannot believe that in cutting a whole 15% of the government workforce that all but 11 of the 175 full-time employees in the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department was unavoidable and not a malicious attempt to lessen sanctions enforcement on Syria and Iran which the President has been hesitant to apply constantly standing to block or postpone Congressional and even European demands for tougher sanctions. This particular choice was a malicious and deliberate crippling of essential operations for which President Obama must be held accountable for as this had to come from the very top with his blessings. There is no way anybody can convince us that this was done without the President’s full knowledge and endorsement. This is another instance where I reread the Constitutional definition of treason and wonder when the trials will begin.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Blog at WordPress.com.