Posted tagged ‘Obama’

Stephen K. Bannon to Obama: Why Don’t You Go to Pearl Harbor and Apologize to the Dead Still Buried There?

May 28, 2016

Stephen K. Bannon to Obama: Why Don’t You Go to Pearl Harbor and Apologize to the Dead Still Buried There?

Source: Stephen K. Bannon to Obama: Why Don’t You Go to Pearl Harbor and Apologize to the Dead Still Buried There? – Breitbart

Breitbart Executive Chairman and SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon opened his Breitbart News Daily radio show on Friday expressing outrage at Barack Obama’s apology tour of Hiroshima.

Below is a partial transcript:

I had Japanese partners. I was a partner with Nissho Iwa for a while. They financed my merchant bank for a while when I left Goldman Sachs. I have many, many dear friends in Japan. I’ve spent many years in Japan. I have sailed with the Japanese Navy when I was a Naval officer off of Korea. I have the highest regard for the Japanese, but guess what? They were devils during World War II. Okay? And we beat ’em. And it took a nuclear weapon.

I want everybody in this audience today who’s grandparents or parents were one of the potential 1 million landing force in Japan — we planned that for three years. One million men to land in Japan, and they thought the minimum casualties would be 5 million people. You have to remember something, folks. It took two nuclear weapons to bring the military junta in Japan to their knees after fire bombing them for 6 months. Two nuclear weapons. And he’s over there to start Memorial Day Weekend.

Why doesn’t he go to Saipan or Peleliu or Tarawa or Guadalcanal or the Coral Sea or Midway or Wake. I got a better idea. Why don’t they take that presidential plane and fly into Pearl Harbor and have the President of Japan, who’s lecturing a President of the United States in front of the world, why don’t you go to Pearl Harbor and sit there and apologize to the dead that are still at the USS Arizona today! They’ve never been brought out. They’re down there right now. Why don’t we get him to come over and apologize?

This guy makes me sick to my stomach! And any of you Never Trump people out there, I want you to embrace that. Because that is what you’re fighting against. That is what Hillary Clinton, that is what this entire Democratic apparatus represents. And you have not a shred of honor. And I want you to all call in today, you Never Trump people, and I want you to say, “Oh no, the Constitution! The Constitution!” I want you to watch what he is doing in Hiroshima.

And I want the President to get on Air Force One right now and fly to Pearl Harbor, stand over that monument where the bridge — the bridge of the Arizona is. Admiral Kidd is still down there. Nine-hundred men are still in the Arizona entombed 75 years afterwards, and he has the audacity to go to Hiroshima.

 

Listen to the full monologue and the subsequent discussion below:

 

Cartoons of the Day

May 27, 2016

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

true

 

votes

H/t Joopklepzeiker

Politicians and diapers

8 Iranian missile launches since nuke deal signed, expert tells US Congress

May 26, 2016

8 Iranian missile launches since nuke deal signed, expert tells US Congress Islamic Republic increases ballistic missile tests, strives to improve accuracy, despite American opposition

By Judah Ari Gross

May 26, 2016, 4:29 pm

Source: 8 Iranian missile launches since nuke deal signed, expert tells US Congress | The Times of Israel

But the US state department has more concerns about Liberman than Iranian rockets

An Iranian Shahab-3 missile launched during military exercises outside the city of Qom, Iran, in June 2011. (AP/ISNA/Ruhollah Vahdati)

In the 10 months since the Iran nuclear agreement was signed, the Islamic Republic has increased the frequency of its ballistic missile testing, according to researcher Michael Elleman, who testified before a US senatorial committee this week.

Iran is primarily focused on increasing the accuracy, not the range, of its missiles, Elleman said.

 Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank, was called to speak Tuesday before the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which is investigating the effects of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the official name for the Iran nuclear deal signed in July 2015.

Since then, Iran’s ballistic missile program has become a central issue in the debate surrounding the nuclear deal, with opponents of the agreement saying test launches violate the terms of the JCPOA, while proponents argue missile tests are “inconsistent” with United Nations resolutions but not necessarily illegal.

According to the UN decision, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” until October 2023.

As they’re only “called upon not to” test missiles, but not expressly forbidden from doing so, Iran has used that loophole to increase its testing with impunity.

“[The US has] engaged in a lot of hue and cry over Iran’s missile capabilities, but they should know that this ballyhoo does not have any influence and they cannot do a damn thing,” Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei said this week.

A Khalij Fars ballistic missile on a transporter during a military parade in Iran. (Iranian military/CC BY-SA 3.0/WikiMedia)

A Khalij Fars ballistic missile on a transporter during a military parade in Iran. (Iranian military/CC BY-SA 3.0/WikiMedia)

According to Elleman, in the almost year following the signing of the agreement and the removal of sanctions, Iran has performed at least eight missile tests — three in 2015 and five thus far in 2016.

In 2005, 2013 and 2014, however, when negotiations for the deal were in full swing, Iran did not perform a single test of a “nuclear-capable missile,” the IISS fellow testified.

After talks fell through in 2005 and before they resumed in 2013, the Islamic Republic “averaged roughly five test launches per year,” according to Elleman.

A missile launched from the Alborz mountains in Iran on March 9, 2016, reportedly inscribed in Hebrew, 'Israel must be wiped out.' (Fars News)

A missile launched from the Alborz mountains in Iran on March 9, 2016, reportedly inscribed in Hebrew, ‘Israel must be wiped out.’ (Fars News)

Though the increase from an average of five to eight missile tests a year seems dramatic — it’s a 60 percent increase, after all — Elleman offered perspective by comparing that to the US and Soviet missile testing programs during the Cold War, which averaged “about one test a week,” or nearly 10 times as many tests per year.

Tactically speaking, ballistic missiles have little value other than as a means of delivering a nuclear warhead, Elleman pointed out.

In May, an Iranian official claimed the country had tested a missile capable of reaching Israel, which had almost unheard-of accuracy for Iran.

“We test-fired a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers and a margin of error of eight meters,” Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi was quoted as saying at a Tehran science conference.

However, this was swiftly denied by the Iranian defense minister on the same day.

“We’re still trying to get to the bottom of what exactly transpired,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a press briefing.

“We are aware of Iranian claims of an additional ballistic missile launch. We’re also aware of statements from the defense minister indicating that such a launch did not take place,” he said.

Accuracy over range

Whether or not the test took place, the emphasis on the rocket’s margin of error points to a renewed focus on the accuracy of Iran’s existing arsenal of missiles, rather than on the development of farther-reaching projectiles.

“Iran seeks to improve the accuracy of its missiles, a priority that supersedes the need to develop longer-range missiles,” Elleman told the Senate committee on Tuesday. “Iran has repeated said that it does not need missiles with a range of greater than 2,000 kilometers, or 1,200 miles.”

At that range, Iran could easily reach any target within Israel, which is just under 1,000 miles away.

A military exhibition displays the Shahab-3 missile under a picture of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran, in 2008 (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

A military exhibition displays the Shahab-3 missile under a picture of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran, in 2008. (AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

At this point in time, however, Iran’s missile technology is far from accurate enough to reliably hit a predetermined target, and changing that will not be easy or quick, Elleman said.

“Substantial improvements in missile accuracy will take years, if not a decade, to materialize,” he said.

As with so many things, he most important aspects of a military attack are location, location, location. A missile — even a nuclear-tipped missile — landing in the Arava desert would have an incomparably lesser effect than a missile landing on, say, Dizengoff Center in Tel Aviv.

“Iran’s ballistic missiles have poor accuracy. The successful destruction of a single fixed military target, for example, would probably require Iran to use a significant percentage of its missile inventory,” Elleman told the Senate committee.

Illustrative photo of a Fateh-110 ballistic missile, taken at an Iranian armed forces parade in 2012. (military.ir/Wikimedia Commons)

Illustrative photo of a Fateh-110 ballistic missile, taken at an Iranian armed forces parade in 2012. (military.ir/Wikimedia Commons)

That inventory consists of over 300 missiles considered “nuclear-capable,” according to the international Missile Technology Control Regime monitoring association, which defines it as any missile capable of delivering a 1,100 pound (500 kg) warhead a distance of 186 miles (300 km), Elleman said.

Slow progress on ICBM technology

In terms of increasing the range of its ballistic missiles, the senior researcher said Iran has not made great strides in that effort.

“I have seen no evidence to suggest that Iran is actively developing an intermediate- or intercontinental-range ballistic missile (IRBM or ICBM, respectively),” Elleman said, but he added, “I cannot speak to a covert program.”

The most recent test that could be related to ICBMs appears to have been the launch of the Simorgh rocket, which is believed to have been conducted last month. US and Iranian officials have not publicly acknowledged the test, though Russian revealed that the launch popped up on one of their radar stations.

Iranians take photos of the Simorgh satellite rocket during celebrations to mark the 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, in Teheran, February 11, 2016. (AFP/Atta Kenare)

Iranians take photos of the Simorgh satellite rocket during celebrations to mark the 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, in Teheran, February 11, 2016. (AFP/Atta Kenare)

The Simorgh rocket is designed to launch satellites into space. However, Elleman told the Senate committee, “Without question, rockets designed to boost a satellite into orbit and long-range ballistic missiles employ many of the same technologies, key components, and operational features.”

But it’s not likely that the Simorgh itself would be used as a weapon because of the considerable effort that would be required to convert it into a reliable ICBM. Rather, the information gleaned from the space rocket would be applied to create a new type of missile, Elleman said.

“Iran’s ambitious space program provides engineers with critical experience developing powerful booster rockets and other skills that could be used in developing longer-range missiles, including ICBMs,” he said.

The production of those long-range missiles, which would be capable of striking the United States, is still years away, assuming Iran continues on its current course.

According to Admiral William Gortney of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, Iran is anticipated to have an operational intercontinental ballistic missile by the year 2020.

Michael Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank. (Screen capture: C-Span)

Michael Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. (Screen capture: C-Span)

Meanwhile, Elleman, who has interviewed Russian and Ukrainian scientists who worked in the Iranian missile program, estimated the Islamic Republic would not be able to produce an operational ICBM until “2022, at the earliest.”

In his testimony, the senior IISS researcher also discussed an interesting piece of modern history, namely that Israel is partially responsbile for the Iranian missile defense program, which was created before the 1979 revolution when the two countries were still allies.

“Ironically, the shah teamed with Israel to develop a short-range system after Washington denied his request for Lance missiles,” Elleman said.

“Known as Project Flower, Iran supplied the funds and Israel provided the technology. The monarchy also pursued nuclear technologies, suggesting an interest in a delivery system for nuclear weapons,” he said.

State Dept. Says Liberman Appointment ‘Raises Legitimate Questions’ About Direction of Israeli Govt

May 26, 2016

The US is less that pleased that Israel’s new defense minister will be Yisrael Beytenu’s Avigdor Liberman, making the expanded coalition stronger on the right.

By: Hana Levi Julian

Published: May 26th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » State Dept. Says Liberman Appointment ‘Raises Legitimate Questions’ About Direction of Israeli Govt

Yisrael Beytenu party chairman Avigdor Liberman
Photo Credit: Screenshot

The U.S. is not happy about the appointment of Israel’s new defense minister, Yisrael Beytenu party chairman Avigdor Liberman, to the coalition government. This became patently obvious at Wednesday State Department briefing (May 25, 2016) in Washington DC after a long round of questions on other topics — most of them about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds during her tenure as Secretary of State — when the session was nearly over. There were just a few minutes left, said State Department spokesperson Mark Toner, who seemed almost to be waiting for someone — anyone — to ask the question.

And then finally, the very last one, squeezed in at the final second, a reporter managed to deliver the perfect pitch over home plate. Following is the question — clearly a softball — tossed to the harried spokesperson, who practically leaped to answer it, and his response.

Q: I know it’s like the fifth day in a row, but at least it’s now formally been announced that Avigdor Lieberman is to be Israel’s defense minister. Do you have any comment on the new Israeli government and his appointment to that job in particular?

Mr. Toner: I do. We have seen reports an agreement’s been reached to expand the coalition.

“We’ve also seen reports from Israel describing it as the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history. And we also know that many of its ministers have said they opposed a two-state solution.

“This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in – headed in, rather – and what kind of policies it may adopt, but ultimately we’re going to judge this government based on its actions.

“We’re going to work with this government as we have with every Israeli government that preceded it, with the goal of strengthening our cooperation, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel, and in our commitment to working towards a two-state solution.”

GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks

May 26, 2016

GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks

Source: GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks – Breitbart

AFP

The Pentagon is accelerating its program to recruit younger illegals and put them on a fast-track to citizenship, and the GOP leadership just blocked an amendment to stop the recruitment.

From October 2015 through April 2016, the military’s program inducted 136 enlistees covered by the president’s 2012 Oval Office amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Marine Lt. Col. Gabrielle Hermes.

That’s up from five DACA recruits in fiscal year 2015, she said.

The recruitment is growing even as U.S. Army is shrinking by roughly 10,000 troops each year from 2015 to 2018.

The so-called ‘Dreamers’ were inducted through the Pentagon’s Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, which was adapted to accept illegals covered by Obama’s DACA program, which provides illegal with two-year exemptions from possible repatriation, plus work-permits.

The MAVNI program was established to facilitate the military’s recruitment into critical job specialties, such as interpreters and medical professionals.

To block the recruitment of the illegals instead of young Americans, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Paul Gosar (R.-Ariz.) filed an recruitment-reform amendment to the House’s version of the Pentagon budget. Gosar called the recruitment program a “backdoor amnesty,” because it quickly grants citizenship to the illegals.

But the congressman is not a member of the House Armed Services Committee, so he had get to approval from the House Rules Committee to schedule a vote on his amendment. That committee is controlled by House Speaker Paul Ryan, and it blocked Gosar’s pro-American amendment from being debated.

The leading advocate for the illegals on the House Armed Services Committee is Rep. Ruben Gallego (D.-Ariz.). He said he was thrilled that his committee chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R.-Texas), and the Republican leadership sided with him against Gosar and his fellow Freedom Caucus co-sponsors.

“I am pleased that Congressman Gosar’s attempt to irresponsibly revise compromise language that could enable Dreamers to serve was rejected by cooler heads in the House GOP Leadership,” he said. “Dreamers” is the term used by Democrats to describe younger illegals.

“This shouldn’t be a controversial issue. The Secretary of Defense has the statutory authority to allow any immigrant to enlist if it’s in our national interest – including DACA recipients who want to fight for our country. It’s about defense and what is in the best interest of our nation and our military,” Gallego said.

In June 2012, when President Barack Obama announced his DACA program for illegal immigrants brought into the U.S. as children, he blamed Republicans for blocking the amnesty legislation in Congress. But rather than compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, he directed his deputies to cease enforcing immigration law against many classes of illegals, including younger illegals.

The point of the Gosar amendment was to assert congressional control over military policy.

Now that the National Defense Authorization Act passed the House and has been sent over to the Senate, the question is whether Republicans will go after the Pentagon’s backdoor amnesty themselves.

But the Senate Armed Services Chairman is Sen. John S. McCain (R.-Ariz.), a strong supporter of amnesty. Breitbart News asked for a comment, but his office said it would declined to comment on actions taken in the House.

Rosemary Jenks, who leads government affairs at the Washington-based NumbersUSA, said it has always been legal for permanent residents to enlist in the military on the same terms as citizens.

In a Sept. 25, 2014 memo, Jessica L. Wright, the undersecretary of defense for personnel, asserted that illegal immigrants awaiting legal action through the DACA program are eligible for MAVNI.

“Now, let’s be clear — this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix,” the president said in 2012. “This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.”

Four years later the DACA program is still in place.

Jenks said the issue goes far beyond Obama and the Pentagon flaunting the law.

Jenks said the issue goes far beyond Obama and the Pentagon flaunting the law. As the military shrinks, illegals are being recruited in place of younger  American recruits, so “President Obama is forcing so many Americans out of the military only to replace them with illegal aliens,” she said. 

AP: Soros-Backed Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuclear Deal DIRECTLY FUNDED journalists and media outlets — Gave NPR $700,000 since 2005, $100,000 just last year

May 21, 2016

AP: Soros-Backed Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuclear Deal DIRECTLY FUNDED journalists and media outlets — Gave NPR $700,000 since 2005, $100,000 just last year

ByPamela Geller on May 21, 2016

Source: AP: Soros-Backed Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuclear Deal DIRECTLY FUNDED journalists and media outlets — Gave NPR $700,000 since 2005, $100,000 just last year | Pamela Geller

Read this latest dispatch from Omri Ceren, political analyst and The Israel Project senior adviser, breaking down the blockbuster AP story on how the group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded media. It is an extraordinary window into how media is bought and paid for. It’s deeply disturbing, like watching sausage being made.

Here’s the back-story on how and why the media supported the most dangerous ‘deal’ in American history – Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran.

“A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.” Aaron Klein notes, not mentioned in the AP article is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

For those of you smart enough to never trust big media — here’s the concrete evidence of your “tin foil hat” theories.

AP: In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

Omri Ceren: In his NYT profile, Ben Rhodes put the Ploughshares Fund at the center of the echo chamber constructed by the White House to sell the Iran deal: “We are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this… We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else” [a].

The Ploughshares Fund is a donation hub that has distributed millions of dollars in recent years to groups pushing the Iran deal. After Congress failed to defeat the deal, Ploughshares President Joseph Cirincione published a video and letter boasting about how the echo chamber – over 85 groups and 200 people – was created with Ploughshares money: “groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network… we built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds” [b].

The Associated Press just published a deep dive into Ploughshares’s most recent annual report, which details some of those 85 organizations and 200 individuals. The full article is pasted below. The AP broke down the network funded by Ploughshares into three kinds of groups:

Journalists and media outlets (this is the part that’s getting the most attention, and includes NRP and at least two unnamed writers who were funded to write at Mother Jones and The Nation):

Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio station said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran… Previous efforts… Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too. In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica. Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.”

Think tanks and nuclear-issues associations:

The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda. The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500… Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Lobbies:

Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants. J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.

 

On May 5 the NYT published its profile of Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes bragged about creating an “echo chamber” with the Ploughshares Fund to sell the Iran deal on the basis of false pretenses [a]. A few hours ago the AP published a deep dive into Ploughshares showing that the group is funding a range of lobbies, policy shops, and journalists and media outlets, all of which are bouncing Iran messaging back and forth between each other [b].

Aspects of the Ploughshares network had already been reported out. In Feb 2012 the WFB reported on Ploughshares funding NPR [c]. In March 2015 the WSJ reported “the Ploughshares coalition includes a former Iranian government spokesman, the liberal Jewish organization J Street and a group of former American diplomats who have held private talks with Iranian government officials… [and] the Arms Control Association” [d]. In July 2015 the WFB printed details of a Ploughshares conference call that brought together White House officials with over 100 participants, in which groups were told to prepare for a “real war” that would involve “blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” pressuring Congressional Democrats, and leaning on Jewish groups [e][f]. In August 2015 Commentary published 1,500 words and a couple dozen links naming names in the network [g].

What hadn’t been widely discussed – until today’s AP story – was that Ploughshares has been directly funding journalists and media outlets in the context of the politicized Iran deal fight. In case you’re running down this angle, here are some documents published by Ploughshares Fund describing the group’s efforts in its own words.

In 2014 Ploughshares commissioned a “Cultural Strategy Report.” It laid out how the organization could use PR firms, Hollywood studios, video games, and journalists to create a “cultural strategy that could complement existing funding and operational activities.” Here is part of the section describing directly funding journalism [PDF here – h]:

Similar to an academic chair, directly fund one or more national journalism positions at media outlets like The Guardian, Salon, Huffington Post, or Pro Publica, whose exclusive “beat” and focus of investigation and reporting would be nuclear weapons, disarmament, and nonproliferation… We understand that similar efforts supported by Ploughshares Fund in the past did not generate the desired volume of coverage (funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk). However we feel this strategy would be more successful by focusing on themes, media outlets and journalists who resonate with the target audiences (youth and faith communities) and by pursing this strategy in concert with other approaches.

— In 2015 Ploughshares published a video and letter from Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione titled “How We Won.” Cirincione boasted that the group leveraged its funding so lobbyists, policy voices, and journalists could “coordinate efforts” to push the Iran deal. The video ends with a scrolling list of groups involved. The letter goes into detail on how Ploughshares leveraged funding to create its network [i]:

These groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network. Often, networks can make all the difference… We built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals in favor of a negotiated solution to the Iranian crisis… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds.

A lot of work is now being done on how the Iran deal echo chamber worked and funded. Two other articles from the last 48 hours: how Ploughshares also funded faith groups to be part of the pro-deal network [j] and how the network was mobilized this week to attack witnesses who testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on the White House’s sales campaign [k].—

[a] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html
[b] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media
[c] http://freebeacon.com/issues/public-radio-pay-to-play/
[d] http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-ramps-up-lobbying-on-iran-1427674427
[e] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-officials-plot-ways-to-pressure-lawmakers-into-supporting-iran-deal/
[f] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-instructs-allies-to-lean-on-jewish-community-to-force-iran-deal/
[g] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/economy/money-behind-iran-nuclear-deal-ploughshares/
[h] http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/M+A_Ploughshares_culture%20report.pdf
[i] http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/how-we-won
[j] http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/20/ben-rhodes-echo-chamber-on-iran-had-many-supporters
[k] http://nypost.com/2016/05/18/obamas-iran-echo-chamber-just-cant-stop/

Cartoons of the Day

May 21, 2016

H/t Power Line

Obama-Top-Gun-copy

 

Trump-Doublestandard-copy

 

Rcaist-Rrump-copy

 

Simplistic-Hillary-copy

 

Hillarys-View-copy

 

H/t Joopklepzeiker

clintonhiss

FULL: Donald Trump at Morning Joe, May 20, 2016- ‘Would you consider Sanders as your running mate?’

May 20, 2016

FULL: Donald Trump at Morning Joe, May 20, 2016- ‘Would you consider Sanders as your running mate?’ May 20, 2016

(Spoiler alert: The question about Sanders as Trump’s VP choice comes at the tail end of the interview, and Trump’s answer was that Sanders should run as an independent. The interview is wide-ranging and deals with foreign policy, China, Mexico, the Islamist threat, the terrorist attack on EgyptAir and a bunch of other stuff. — DM)

Europe’s Leaders Blast Bill Over Democracy Jibe: ‘The Mouth Belongs To Clinton, The Voice Belongs To Soros’

May 20, 2016

Europe’s Leaders Blast Bill Over Democracy Jibe: ‘The Mouth Belongs To Clinton, The Voice Belongs To Soros’

by Raheem Kassam

20 May 2016

Source: Europe’s Leaders Blast Bill Over Democracy Jibe: ‘The Mouth Belongs To Clinton, The Voice Belongs To Soros’

Getty

Top European leaders have blasted Bill and Hillary Clinton following a war of words about the commitment to democracy of both the Polish and Hungarian governments. One leading figure insisted Mr. Clinton “needs a medical test” following his remarks.

Bill Clinton upset NATO allies in a broadly unreported gaffe accusing Poland and Hungary of thinking “democracy is too much trouble” and wanting to have an “authoritarian dictatorship.” This is despite the fact that Poland recently held elections turfing out the establishment political parties in an election with a higher turnout than Mr. Clinton’s re-election in 1996.

Poland’s newly elected Prime Minister Beata Szydlo called Clinton’s words “unjustified and simply unfair”, adding: “With all due respect, and without using coarse words [Clinton] exaggerated and should apologize to us”.

Mr. Clinton’s remarks came during a Hillary for President campaign rally in New Jersey this week, where he claimed: “They want (Russian President Vladimir) Putin-like leadership. Just give me an authoritarian dictatorship and keep the foreigners out”.

“Sound familiar?” he asked, in a broadside against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

But in Mr. Clinton’s attempts to use foreign affairs against Mr. Trump, he angered one of NATO’s most important members: Poland, and one of the few countries holding back the tide of migration into Europe: Hungary.

“If someone says there is no democracy in Poland today, that means he should have a medical test,” blasted the head of Poland’s Law and Justice party Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

And his comments were echoed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who used the incident to highlight the multi-million dollar connections between the Clintons and Hungarian left-wing billionaire George Soros.

Speaking to Hungarian radio on Friday, Mr. Orban blasted: “Hungarians and Polish people rightfully expect more respect from the actual and the former leaders of the United States. I like what the president of the Polish governing party said, although it is harsh, but his reference to the [Clinton’s] need for medical help made many Hungarian hearts beat [in agreement].”

He said, refusing to repeat Mr. Kaczynski’s words: “what is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox” – a literary reference implying Mr. Clinton believes he is a god, while the Hungarians are just cattle.

“[B]eyond the American campaign, the remarks made about Hungary and Poland… have a political dimension,” Mr. Orban said, accusing Mr. Clinton of repeating Soros-inspired campaign lines: “These are not accidental slips of the tongue. And [the number of] these slips or remarks have been multiplying since we are living in the era of the migrant crisis. And we all know that behind the leaders of the Democratic Party, we have to see George Soros.”

“And George Soros published his six points supporting the Muslim migration to Europe, in which he announced that at least one million Muslims should be allowed [into Europe] each year, that they must be provided a safe path and that Europe should be happy to get such a chance and shouldn’t be defending against it. He also said that it will cost a lot of money, which he’d loan.”

“So, here, in Central Europe a shadow power exists, which is linked to George Soros, he is one of the most important sponsors of the Democratic Party, so I have to say that although the mouth belongs to Clinton, the voice belongs to George Soros. And since Hungary is where it is, I mean geographically it is where it is and wants to protect its national sovereignty and security, we are a blockade for this Soros plan in America. They will not carry it out here as long as Hungary has a government working in the national interest.”

Writing in the Observer, NATO-expert John R. Schindler notes: “Polish hard feelings regarding Mr. Clinton’s comments aren’t difficult to decipher. In the first place, the statement that any Polish government wants to emulate Russia in any way seems calculated to offend. Memories of long and brutal occupation by the Kremlin are fresh and fears of Mr. Putin run deep, in light of on-going Russian aggression against Poland’s neighbors. Poles are not much fonder of Russians than Jews are of Germans, a fact Mr. Clinton—who touts his foreign policy accomplishments in the White House—should understand.”

Bloomberg has reported that after an 11-year hiatus from large-scale political campaign funding, Mr. Soros has handed Mrs. Clinton around $13 million so far, “already more than his total disclosed spending in the last two presidential elections combined”.

“Soros’s personal fortune stands at about $24 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index… The Open Society Foundations say they have spent some $13 billion over the past three decades.”

Critics point to Mr. Soros’s funding behind anti-Polish government groups since the elections, as well as worsening Europe’s migrant crisis by funding open borders activists and “refugee” aid groups.

Bob Graham: 9/11 Support Goes To The Top Of Saudi Government

May 19, 2016

Bob Graham: 9/11 Support Goes To The Top Of Saudi Government

by Breitbart News

19 May 2016

Source: Bob Graham: 9/11 Support Goes To The Top Of Saudi Government

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

From Yahoo News:

Is there a smoking gun in the 28 pages that were redacted from the congressional joint inquiry on intelligence from before and after the 9/11 attacks that links the Saudi Arabian government to the attacks? A co-chair of that inquiry, former Forida Sen. Bob Graham thinks there is one. He also says the link goes all the way to the top of the Saudi government and that the government’s funding of terrorist groups continues to this day.

Graham, who has been advocating for the release of those pages for over a decade, sat down with Yahoo News host Stephanie Sy on “Yahoo News Live” to discuss when that might happen, the Senate’s passage of a bill allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government and what he says are the Saudi government’s continued links to terrorism.

On the 28 pages, he said: “I think [they’re] a smoking gun. I think the linkages are so multiple and strong and reinforcing that it’s hard to come away from reading all this material and not feel that there was a support network and that support network came from Saudi Arabia.”

He said it goes beyond the pages though: “They will also open the path to other materials. There are thousands of pages of documents, which speak to the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the 19 hijackers.” He continued, “Could those 19 people have carried out a plot as complex as 9/11 while maintaining anonymity in some cases for more than a year and a half while they were in the United States without having some support?”

As for the bill, which still has to be passed by the House of Representatives and signed by President Obama, he said, “It not only is going to open up the courts of justice to the families and the victims of 9/11. It also has the potential of exposing a tremendous amount of information relative to Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11.” He called the bill “a very big victory.”

After meeting with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Tuesday about the 28 pages, Graham also indicated that the release of those pages could happen soon. He said, “The general has been reviewing these pages closely for a year or more. He told us that before the end of this week, he would probably have his review completed. Then it goes to a panel that’s made up of several agencies [FBI, the Department of State] who will look at the 28 pages for their issues of concern, and then it goes to the president for his determination as to whether to declassify these papers.”

He also told Sy that withholding the documents goes beyond 9/11. He said it could lead to current links between the Saudi government and terrorist groups. He said, “This has been a long time that this information has been withheld from the American people, but there’s also a recognition of the consequences of withholding. Not only the consequences that justice is being denied to the Americans who suffered grievously by 9/11 because they lost a loved one.” He continued, “I think that the Saudis who know what they did and have a pretty good idea that the United States, at least at the highest levels, knows what they did and then nothing’s happened… They’ve interpreted this as being impunity and have continued to fund terrorist organizations and to train the next generation of recruits in their mosques and madrasas.” He said those groups include al-Qaida and ISIS.

Does he consider the withholding of the 28 pages a cover-up? “I have used the term ‘aggressive deception.’”

Read the rest of Alex Bregman’s piece about Bob Graham here.