Archive for State Department

Must-See TV

Democrats may boycott the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech before Congress, but there’ll be another demographic bloc who will be all eyes and ears:

Arab governments have been privately expressing their concern to Washington about the emerging terms of a potential nuclear deal with Iran, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday, citing Arab and U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.

According to the report, the direction of American diplomacy with Tehran has added fuel to fears in some Arab states of a nuclear-arms race in the region, as well as reviving talk about possibly extending a U.S. nuclear umbrella to Middle East allies to counter any Iranian threat.

The major Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have said that a final agreement could allow Shiite-dominated Iran, their regional rival, to keep the technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, according to these officials, while removing many of the sanctions that have crippled its economy in recent years.

Arab officials said a deal would likely drive Saudi Arabia, for one, to try to quickly match Iran’s nuclear capabilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,” an Arab official who has discussed Iran with the Obama administration and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks told the newspaper.

Arab governments have steered clear of aligning their statements with Israel, but share many of that country’s fears, U.S. and Arab diplomats said.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has been perhaps the most vocal critic of the deal with Iran, said last week that Israel knows the details of the planned nuclear deal with Iran and warned that it is a bad one.

“I think this is a bad agreement that is dangerous for the state of Israel, and not just for it,” said Netanyahu, adding, “If anyone thinks otherwise what is there to hide here?”

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki later questioned whether Netanyahu indeed knows “more than the negotiators” about the talks, saying “there is no deal yet.”

Many years ago, Mrs. BTL and I were in discussions with our school system about the proper education of the heirs to the Bloodthirstani throne. We were at loggerheads. The school psychologist asked, with pain and exasperation, “Why don’t you trust us?” The sirens and flashing lights that followed were not from a school fire drill, but from the BS alert system hardwired into our brains. The question was either irrelevant or it answered itself. Either we had a disagreement over the facts of the case—in which case trust did not apply—or the facts were not in dispute—in which case something else explained the disagreement.

But mostly it was the manipulative nature of the question that so pi**ed us off. It’s not about you, we answered.

It’s the same tone I hear from Jen Space Cadet. She implies that we should trust the regime. But it’s not about the regime, or not just. It’s about the Islamic Republic of Iran that has compared the “Zionist entity” to a “filthy microbe” and has sworn to wipe it off the map. Israel is not a disinterested party in these negotiations.

And who is Jen Psaki that we should trust?

Psaki began her career in 2001 with the re-election campaigns of Iowa Democrats Tom Harkin and Tom Vilsack. Psaki then became deputy press secretary for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. From 2005 to 2006, Psaki served as communications director to U.S. Representative Joseph Crowley and regional press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[7]

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign of U.S. Senator Barack Obama, Psaki served as traveling press secretary.[7] After Obama won the election, Psaki followed Obama to the White House as Deputy Press Secretary and was promoted to Deputy Communications Director on December 19, 2009.[8][9] On September 22, 2011, Psaki left that position to become senior vice president and managing director at the Washington, D.C. office of public relations firm Global Strategy Group.[10][11]

In 2012, Psaki returned to political communications as press secretary for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.[12] On February 11, 2013, Psaki became spokesperson for the United States Department of State.[12]

She’s a Democrat political flack—which is fine; she’s obviously successful. But when one’s very existence hangs in the balance, as Israel’s does, does she inspire trust? She—and trust—are irrelevant.

Oh yeah, what about her second in command, Marie “Jobs for Jihadis” Harf?

Harf began her career at the Directorate of Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency as an analyst focusing on Middle Eastern leadership issues. She later became the media spokesperson of the CIA.[3]

During the 2012 presidential election, Harf helped craft President Obama’s national security and communications strategy, and also served as campaign spokeswoman on national security issues.[2][3]

In June 2013, Harf was appointed Deputy Spokesperson for the US State Department, where she currently serves as deputy under Jen Psaki.[2][3]

Better: she at least earned a job in the field of her expertise. But she too exists largely as a mouthpiece for others. And I seriously doubt her former colleagues at the CIA who have studied ISIS and its ideology agree that all we need to do to defeat it is find them positions as stock clerks at Walmart. At least I pray not.

Why don’t we trust you? The question answers itself.

Comments (2)

Scoot Over, Israel

Make room in the woodshed:

The Obama administration was given multiple chances Wednesday to endorse a longtime ally’s airstrikes on America’s biggest enemy at the moment, the so-called Islamic State. Over and over again, Obama’s aides declined to back Egypt’s military operation against ISIS. It’s another sign of the growing strain between the United States and Egypt, once one of its closest friends in the Middle East.

This shouldn’t be a complete surprise; Cairo, after all, didn’t tell Washington about its strikes on the ISIS hotbed of Derna, Libya. Still, Wednesday’s disconnect was jarring. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest passed on a reporter’s question about an endorsement of Egypt’s growing campaign against ISIS. So did State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

“We are neither condemning nor condoning” the Egyptian strikes, is all one U.S. official would tell The Daily Beast.

“The Egyptian military, in particular, is very frustrated with us,” one U.S. government official explained to The Daily Beast. “It is mutual frustration.”

At a briefing with reporters Wednesday, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby called the relationship with Egypt “complicated.”

The Obama regime hates Egypt for opposing ISIS, and hates Israel for opposing Iran. I’m pretty good at describing what this cabal does, but I haven’t a clue as to why. What’s “complicated” about bombing the [bleep] out of ISIS? What’s not to condone? Should Egypt have dropped the want ads with its bombs?

The only logical answer is that they are literally anti-American.

Comments

Jobs for Jihadis

Everybody’s all over that State Department ditz, Marie Harf, for suggesting that all ISIS terrorists need to give up their wicked, wicked ways is a regular swing shift at the old Packard plant.

“We can not win this war by killing them. We can not kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs–“

But it’s been tried before. And not just by Bush:

“I’m not the first person to say something like this. Military commanders that we’ve had throughout many years here fighting this war on terrorism have said the exact same thing…

President George W. Bush talked about poverty being one of the drivers leading people to extremism.

I didn’t think appealing to Bush was how these people rolled.

But it’s been tried even before that.

Wernher von Braun ring a bell?

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which over 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers from Nazi Germany and other foreign countries were brought to the United States for employment in the aftermath of World War II.[1] It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), and in the context of the burgeoning Cold War. One purpose of Operation Paperclip was to deny German scientific expertise and knowledge to the Soviet Union[2] and the United Kingdom,[3] as well as inhibiting post-war Germany from redeveloping its military research capabilities.

Although the JIOA’s recruitment of German scientists began after the Allied victory in Europe on May 8, 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman did not formally order the execution of Operation Paperclip until August 1945. Truman’s order expressly excluded anyone found “to have been a member of the Nazi Party, and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism”. However, those restrictions would have rendered ineligible most of the leading scientists the JIOA had identified for recruitment, among them rocket scientists Wernher von Braun, Kurt H. Debus and Arthur Rudolph, and the physician Hubertus Strughold, each earlier classified as a “menace to the security of the Allied Forces”.[4]

They don’t look too scary. Maybe it’s one thing to de-Nazify the odd rocket scientist or medical researcher, but another to de-Islamify an ISIS savage.

Read about Strughold or Rudolph and von Braun at Mittelbau-Dora, and see if you still feel that way.

But it can be done. If we can just find out what these ISIS boys are good at, we can make them respectable contributors to society.

No one seems to be able to carry out a decent death penalty sentence these days. Just a thought.

Comments

#screamaboutourgirls

AAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

That work for you?

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: Joining me now, Jen Psaki, State Dept. spokesperson. I know you read the intelligence and know what is going on there. Richard has now brought this home to us just in the powerful stories of these children who are being raped and traded as chattel by ISIS.

JEN PSAKI, US STATE DEPT: Andrea first I really want to thank you and thank Richard for bringing light to these types of stories. It is something we don’t talk about enough: the horrific atrocities that women and children are becoming victims of at the hands of ISIL. This is an untold story about what’s happening in Syria, what’s happening in Iraq and something that we really all need to be talking about. It’s something we’re very focused on here at the State Department. We have a whole office on international women and girls. They talk about this frequently but we should all be screaming about how terrible this is.

ANDREA MITHCELL: I know you point out that the State Dept. has a whole office that we don’t pay enough attention to here in the media, thank you.

So, is the State Department saying it has binders full of women?

But I’ve got the modern solution for any problem, large or small.

With Ukraine settled, the raping and chattel-trading will cease shortly.

Comments

The Holocaust: When a Bunch of Zealots Randomly Gassed a Bunch of Folks

So, it was just bad luck—is that the regime’s story?

Since US President Barack Obama’s controversial comments during a recent interview, in which he downplayed the anti-Semitic nature of the deadly shooting attack at a kosher supermarket in Paris last month, government spokespeople have been falling over themselves to explain what exactly he meant. And failing pretty miserably.

In the interview with Vox, published earlier this week, the US President asserted that the media was “overstating” the threat from terrorism to garner ratings, but admitted terrorism was still a problem. In so doing, however, he provoked a storm of controversy with the following comment: “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

First, White House official spokesman Josh Earnest made a valiant but cringeworthy attempt to tidy up after the President, justifying Obama’s claim that climate change was more dangerous than terrorism, as well as attempting to explain how ISIS terrorist Amedy Coulibaly was simply “shooting random folks” without paying any attention to their background at the Hyper Cacher store.

“Folks”. You know this whole rotten bunch is passing gas in your face when they start talking about “folks”. Is that in the White House style manual?

Later Tuesday evening it was the turn of State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who similarly struggled to rationalize Obama’s strange comments.

Associated Press journalist Matt Lee began the exchange, asking: “Does the administration really believe that the victims of this attack were not singled out because they were of a particular faith?”

Psaki’s response to the straightforward question was perhaps even more evasive than Earnest’s.

Psaki: “Well, as you know… I believe… if I remember the victims specifically, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality so I think what they mean by that is… I don’t know if they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store… but (rather) the individuals who were impacted.”

If you enjoyed that, you probably like watching dog fights. That was brutal.

And it wouldn’t stop:

When Lee pointed out that Secretary of State John Kerry’s own actions, by meeting specifically with members of the Jewish community to pay condolences after the attack, suggested otherwise, Psaki struggled to formulate a coherent response.

Psaki: “Naturally given that is… the grocery store is one that, uh…”

Lee: “But don’t you think the store itself was a target?”

Psaki: “That’s different from the victims being…”

Lee: “Does the administration believe that this was an anti-Jewish… an attack on the Jewish community in France?”

Psaki: “I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here…”

Lee: “But if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?

“Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher (store)…? An attacker going into a store that is clearly identified with one specific faith – I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say that this was a targeted attack!”

Psaki: “I don’t have more for you Matt, it’s an issue for the French government to address.”

What’s going on here? Are they just covering up for another imbecilic thing their boss said? Or is it worse? Do they hate Israel (apparently) and Netanyahu (absolutely) so much that they would deny a narrative that makes Jews sympathetic?

What exactly did he say again?

It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” Obama said.

What did I tell you about “folks”?

This is the administration’s story, and they’re sticking to it. A bunch of “zealots” “randomly” shot a bunch of “folks”. We don’t have to hold it up to ridicule: it ridicules itself. I almost feel sorry for Jen Psaki for being pimped out like that.

But I soon get over it. At least she called them victims and not folks.

Comments (1)

EXACTLY How Stupid Is The State Department????

Can you believe this stupid?

The year began on a rough note for the U.S. State Department’s Think Again, Turn Away anti-terror program. On January 1, the State Department used the program’s official Twitter account to tweet a photo collage accompanied by the message, “Entering 2015, taking time to honor some of terror’s many victims of 2014 and their families – RIP.” However, none of the individuals appearing in the photos are believed to be dead, but rather held captive by terrorists.

The tweet, since deleted, appeared as follows, and is archived here

Dolts, Twits, Nitwits… I’m looking for a word to describe these lazy jerks.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Department of Clarification

“Let me be clear,” as Obama likes to say:

The United States is not considering sanctions against Israel in response to its construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki clarified on Monday.

“I can set the record straight and be clear that reports that we might be contemplating sanctions against Israel are completely unfounded and without merit,” She told reporters, according to The Blaze.

Psaki was asked if perhaps the Obama administration had been considering sanctions against Israel and now is not, adding she thinks her statement “has been consistently true” over time.

However, she indicated that the government may in fact have been mulling sanctions against Israel at some point. For example, she was asked explicitly if sanctions were ever under consideration, and refused to say more, “I just am not going to have any more for you on it.”

Moments later, she said sanctions against Israel are nothing something that will be “moving forward,” a possible indication that the option did exist. She then quickly corrected herself to say they were never being contemplated.

“We put sanctions in place around the world for a variety of reasons,” she said. “This isn’t a situation where obviously moving forward with that, or were contemplating that, as my comments made clear.”

They did? I mean, they did!

Late last week, dozens of Republicans demanded that President Barack Obama answer clearly whether he is considering sanctions against Israel, a move that the GOP would have hotly opposed.

The letter, published Friday, further warned that “Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the Administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome. Such reports send a clear message to our friends and enemies alike that such alliances with the United States government can no longer be unquestionably trusted.”

If you have to ask, don’t you already have your answer?

Comments (1)

How You Going to Keep Them Down in the Ghetto After They’ve Seen Jerusalem?

Concerned…“deeply concerned”…

Where have I heard those words before?

US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the move in the Ramot neighborhood would further hinder efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a two-state solution, Reuters reported.

“We are deeply concerned by this decision particularly given the tense situation in Jerusalem,” Psaki said during her daily press briefing. “Most importantly they are contrary to Israel’s own stated goal of achieving a two-state solution because they make it more difficult to do that.”

Funny. The world just celebrated the silver anniversary of the unification of another capital city. But not this one. Can’t imagine why.

Anyway, I now remember where I heard “concerned” before:

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on Tuesday issued a noncommittal response to two deadly attacks in Israel Monday, voicing “concern” about escalating violence and urging progress toward a “two-state solution.”

“We need a Palestinian state living in peace and security next to the Israeli state,” said Europe’s top diplomat in Berlin, after recently visiting Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

“And I am particularly sad and worried about the escalation of violence that we are witnessing these hours,” she told reporters, flanked by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, apparently referring to deadly stabbing attacks in Tel Aviv and Gush Etzion.

That was some EU dingbat, but what’s the difference? What Israel could use, “particularly given the tense situation in Jerusalem”, is a whole lot less of the West’s concern, sorrow, or worry. Let them bury their dead and build their houses in peace. If peace is what you truly seek, that is.

Comments (1)

Jen Psycho

Jen Psaki will never go lower than when she began:

But give her credit for trying:

MATT LEE, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Yesterday, the ICC made its decision that there was no case to prosecute for war crimes in Gaza. But also yesterday – and you spoke about that very briefly here. But also yesterday, General Dempsey, who is no slouch when it comes to military things, told an audience in New York that the Israelis went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage during the Gaza war.

And I’m puzzled, because I thought it was the position of the Administration – or maybe it was just the position of the State Department and the White House – that Israel was not doing enough to live up to its – what you called its own high standards. Back on August 3rd, there was the statement you put out after the UNRWA school incident, saying that the U.S. “is appalled by today’s disgraceful shelling.” And that was some pretty fierce criticism.

How do you reconcile these two apparent divergent points of view? When this statement came out, the United States was appalled? Did that just mean the State Department was appalled?

Allow, me, BTL—aka Thirstradamus—to take a bow. We called this yesterday. Over our morning coffee:

Dempsey said the Pentagon three months ago sent a “lessons-learned team” of senior officers and non-commissioned officers to work with the IDF to see what could be learned from the Gaza operation, “to include the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties and what they did with tunneling.”

The general said civilian casualties during the conflict were “tragic, but I think the IDF did what they could” to avoid them.

“The IDF is not interested in creating civilian casualties. They’re interested in stopping the shooting of rockets and missiles out of the Gaza Strip and into Israel,” Dempsey stressed.

Boy, another member of the Obama regime going off the reservation. Wait’ll Barack and John Kerry hear about this! Obama will know whose ass to kick.

Not only did the general praise Israel, he sent a team to learn how they did it!

Ms. Psaki, your response?

JEN PSAKI, STATE DEPARTMENT: No, that is the position of the Administration; it remains the position of the Administration. As we made clear throughout the summer’s conflict, we supported Israel’s right to self-defense and strongly condemned Hamas’s rocket attacks that deliberately targeted civilians, and the use of tunnels, of course, of attacks into Israel. However, we also expressed deep concern and heartbreak for the civilian death toll in Gaza and made clear, as you noted in the statement you pointed to, that we believed that Israel could have done more to prevent civilian casualties, and it was important that they held their selves to a high standard. So that remains our view and position about this summer’s events.

LEE: Okay. But I’m still confused as to how you can reconcile the fact that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – who knows a bit about how military operations work, I would venture to guess; I don’t know him, but I assume that he wouldn’t be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if he was – if he didn’t —

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

LEE: — says that the Israelis essentially did the best that they could and lived up to – by extension lived up to their high standards by taking – by going to, quote, “extraordinary lengths” to limit the collateral damage.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to the chairman’s team for his – more specifics on his comments. But it remains the broad view of the entire Administration that they could have done more and they should have taken more – all feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties.

I almost think she couldn’t be this dumb, that someone is holding a metaphoric gun to her head, making her say these imbecilic things.

And then I look at that absurd selfie again. The administration’s position is that Israel did everything it could to prevent civilian casualties, yet is could have done more (while Hamass wanted as many as it could get, both Arab and Israeli). Yep, that twit could utter that nonsense on her own, without any coercion.

And, given her “high standard”, she could utter more.

Comments (1)

Hating on the Hebrew PM

If you want a closer look inside the toxic relationship between Obama and Netanyahu than that provided by Jeffrey Goldberg, you’ll need a colonoscope.

Either way, it’s FOS:

The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit.”

A great word, one I use whenever I can, but not enlightening here. To my understanding (and Urban Dictionary’s), it has two distinct meanings: nonsense, but nonsense more trivial than its bovine cousin; and just plain chicken, as in cowardly.

The Obamagruppenfuhrers mean both:

The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.

Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.

Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.) But I had not previously heard Netanyahu described as a “chickenshit.”

“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

Okay, they’ve made their case; now I’ll make mine.

Sharon would have regretted giving Gaza to Hamass terrorists if he had not had an all-but-fatal stroke shortly after he did so. He certainly would not have allowed their massive militarization to take place unchecked, leading to two wars with Hamass, and their countless rockets and missiles, in less than a decade. His fellow hawk, Yitzak Rabin, would also likely have considered his Oslo accords an abject failure. Begin had Sadat, an Egyptian president, not a Palestinian terrorist. And Sadat got a hell of a deal from Begin, one no other Israeli PM could ever hope to match: Sinai (all 23,500 square miles). Just for promising not to launch another war he would certainly lose (again).

Oh yes, and two of these four characters, Sadat and Rabin, were assassinated for their efforts. Try to keep your wishful thinking out of it, Barack.

I am a serial admirer of Prime Minister Netanyahu—I would swap our nations’ leaders faster than you could say “hand me a five iron”. But I am also open about his faults. Most of those have to do with asking how high when Obama says jump.

Which the Obamagruppenfuhrers acknowledge even as they poke needles into his effigy:

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

So, when he doesn’t do what you want, he’s a chicken[bleep]; and when he does do what you want (as above), he’s also a chicken[bleep].

Doesn’t that qualify as unadulterated bull[bleep]? It has to.

But then, this is their point of view, not mine. Certainly not Netanyahu’s.

Theirs and the author’s:

It is the Netanyahu government that appears to be disconnected from reality. Jerusalem is on the verge of exploding into a third Palestinian uprising. It is true that Jews have a moral right to live anywhere they want in Jerusalem, their holiest city. It is also true that a mature government understands that not all rights have to be exercised simultaneously.

Kind of Goldberg, presumably Jewish, to grant Jews the liberty to live (or not) in Jerusalem. Thousands of years late, but better late than never.

There’s so much more I could say, but the point is clear. This means war.

Comments

Jews Out of Jerusalem—American Foreign Policy

I’m no ingenue, but I can barely believe the words I’m reading:

The United States Monday blasted Israel for pledging to build 1,000 more Jewish homes in Jerusalem, saying any such move would be “incompatible” with peace efforts, according to AFP.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Washington was “deeply concerned” by the reports and American embassy officials were having high-level talks with Israeli leaders to seek more information.

“We continue to make our position absolutely clear that we view settlement activity as illegitimate and unequivocally oppose unilateral steps that prejudge the future of Jerusalem,” Psaki told reporters.

“Israel’s leaders have said they would support a pathway to a two-state solution, but moving forward with this type of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace,” she added.

Jews living in Jerusalem: “incompatible with the pursuit of peace”. If that’s how you define peace, you can shove it up your “illegitimate and unequivocal” ass.

Imagine this administration condemning black families buying buildings in white neighborhoods and moving in. Imagine them saying this sort of thing after the black families were threatened with violence and then met it face to face. Imagine them saying it after two Jewish people (or black in this scenario, one a baby) were murdered by a Hamass operative (white supremacist) who ran them over with his car.

Yet they don’t hesitate saying it about Jews.

Speaking of Israeli apartheid:

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was denied meetings with top American officials during his visit to the United States this week, The Associated Press (AP) reported on Friday, citing officials in Washington.

While Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon did see Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, the officials said the White House and State Department rejected Israeli proposals for meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, national security adviser Susan Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry.

The officials also revealed that the Obama administration had sought to stop Ya’alon from seeing Power, but the objections were made too late to cancel the meeting.

I don’t dispute a single thing Ya’alon said—indeed, I’d go further—but you can’t expect them to be happy you said it. No one, not least me, said pettiness and thin-skin were not an integral part of politics.

Comments

Is This Still Smart Power?

It’s no surprise that that most self-celebrating of social media, Twitter, is this regime’s go-to method of foreign policy.

There was Michelle:

Then Jen Psaki:

Of course, Barack’s selfie:

With such a record of success, it’s no wonder they brought the hashtag to bear in the war on terror:

The State Department social media initiative designed to engage with ISIS terrorists and jihadist sympathizers is “embarrassing,” “ineffective” and “distressing,” the head of a prominent intelligence group wrote Tuesday in a scathing editorial.

The “Think Again Turn Away” campaign and Twitter account, launched by the State Department in December, in part, to dissuade on-the-fence jihadists from joining the fight against the West is actually serving to embolden and legitimize the social media presence of bloodthirsty terrorists already on the ground, Rita Katz, the director of the SITE Intelligence Group, wrote in a Time magazine article published online Tuesday.

The State Department’s “English-language outreach program is not only ineffective, but also provides jihadists with a stage to voice their arguments,” Katz claimed, calling the initiative’s Twitter account a “gaffe machine that “walks dangerous ethical lines.”

“Thirteen years into the war on terror, it is distressing to see certain ways the U.S. government is combating domestic radicalization by groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State,” Katz wrote. The account regularly (engages) in petty disputes with fighters and supporters of groups like IS (also known as ISIS), Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab, and (argues) over who has killed more people while exchanging sarcastic quips.”

“In order to counter a problem, one must first study it before adopting a solution. Had the people behind Think Again Turn Away understood jihadists’ mindsets and reasons for their behavior, they would have known that their project of counter messaging would not only be a waste of taxpayer money, but ultimately be counterproductive,” she wrote. “I would much rather see the State Department’s online ventures involved in projects that explain the great things American policies have achieved — not arguing with jihadi fighters on who killed more innocent Muslims.”

I don’t think they’re getting any smarter:

The U.S. State Department ratcheted up the online propaganda war on Wednesday, tweeting a photo composite showing four dead ISIS jihadis who it suggested were killed in overnight airstrikes in Syria.

The ‘Think Again Turn Away’ program’s Twitter account blasted out the image to nearly 8,000 followers. The initiative’s goal is to dissuade would-be jihadis, including so-called ‘foreign fighters,’ from joining up with ISIS.

One ISIS-linked Twitter account with nearly 10,000 followers claimed Tuesday night that the ‘first victims of air strikes by US on Syria’ were ‘children and women.’

Another tweeted news stories from dubious sources claiming French fighter jets mistakenly bombed Kurdish allies, killing 75 fighters in a friendly-fire cockup.

Separately, a weeks-long Twitter campaign centered around the hashtag #AMessageFromISIStoUS spread a series of chest-puffing boasts, including direct threats against the U.S. homeland.

We rightly condemn ISIS for broadcasting their executions of innocents hostages. But posting pictures of dead terrorists? In a Twitter account? By our government? Not only is it juvenile, it’s unseemly. Kill ‘em, kill ‘em all. Just don’t act like them.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »