Leaked“transcript”:ObamademandsunilateralceasefirefromNetanyahu

Leaked “transcript”: Obama demands unilateral ceasefire from Netanyahu

posted at 4:01 pm on July 29, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

David Harsanyi and Philip Klein are right. No one talks like this. This might be a fair summary of what they said but it’s obviously not a transcript.

Barack Obama: I demand that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities, in particular airstrikes.

Benjamin Netanyahu: And what will Israel receive in exchange for a ceasefire?

BO: I believe that Hamas will cease its rocket fire — silence will be met with silence.

BN: Hamas broke all five previous ceasefires. It’s a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

BO: I repeat and expect Israel to stop all its military activities unilaterally. The pictures of destruction in Gaza distance the world from Israel’s position.

It goes on, with O allegedly promising to have our terror-supporting friends Turkey and Qatar mediate with Hamas once Israel ceases fire, to which Netanyahu supposedly says, “I protest because Hamas can continue to launch rockets and use tunnels for terror attacks.” “I protest”? Jeffrey Goldberg imagines the rest of the conversation:

Obama: "Bring me the leader of the Jews." Bibi: "I am that leader." Obama: "I demand forthwith a knish." Bibi: "I refuse you a knish."

— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) July 29, 2014

Another possibility: Maybe the “transcript” is just a few translated iterations of an actual transcript. Apparently an American source provided Israeli media with the original transcript, then it was translated into Hebrew, and then possibly translated back into English by someone else, leading to the odd, stilted rhetoric here.

In any case, Ben Rhodes says the whole thing is false, as does the National Security Council’s spokesman. Just as I’m writing this, Netanyahu’s office is claiming it’s false too. Is it possible that O demanded a unilateral ceasefire, though, irrespective of the language he used? Sure, why not? That atrocious ceasefire proposal that Kerry floated last weekend was a Turkey/Qatar wishlist of Israeli concessions to Hamas. A unilateral ceasefire would be another. If the “transcript” is a total fabrication, it remains plausible enough to have experts wondering only because of how Obama and Kerry have behaved so far:

Kerry’s initial plan was to support Egypt’s demand that Hamas accept a cease-fire. When Hamas balked at surrender and it was clear that Egypt lacked the clout to make the deal stick, Kerry turned to Turkey and Qatar, which as friends and financial backers of Hamas had more leverage. That put the deal first and a stable solution to Gaza’s problems second. The deal blew up anyway, victim of Israeli and Palestinian inability to get to yes.

By turning to Turkey and Qatar, Kerry also enhanced their position in the regional power game. That’s contrary to the interests and desires of the United States’ traditional allies, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the moderate Palestinian camp headed by Abbas.

Maybe the Turks and Qataris demanded that Kerry at least offer their proposal as a condition of working on this going forward. They have leverage over Hamas; in theory, if not in practice, they’d be willing to use it and Obama needs their cooperation in trying to contain Syria and Iraq. He doesn’t want to be sucked into some wider confrontation between Israel and Turkey a la the Mavi Marmara flotilla disaster in 2010 — although he may have no choice — at a moment when the region’s attention should be focused on ISIS. The sooner he can get Israel to stop firing, even though Hamas retains a gigantic stockpile of rockets hidden in as-yet-undestroyed terror tunnels, the fewer opportunities Erdogan will have to coopt another Israel/Hamas confrontation for his own Islamist ends.

Via RCP, here’s Kerry talking about the many productive discussions he’s having with Netanyahu. Ahem.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: ceasefire, Hamas, Israel, kerry, netanyahu, obama, palestinian

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Openthread:Sundaymorningtalkingheads

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on July 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

It’s Waffles for breakfast this Sunday morning: John Kerry will be the star guest on all five shows to chat about the Afghan election compromise, Israel’s ground operations against Hamas in Gaza, and the fact that the Russian bear is now gobbling up commercial airline passengers to assert its hegemony in eastern Ukraine. Can the steady hands of Obama and Kerry steer U.S. foreign policy through this maelstrom with no damage to American interests? Spoiler alert: No.

If that sounds unappetizing, Ted Cruz will follow Kerry on “Fox News Sunday” to discuss his already-doomed bill to end Obama’s DACA amnesty for illegal immigrant children and his endorsement of Glenn Beck’s charity efforts at the border. The full line-up is at Politico.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Afghanistan, election, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, kerry, mh17, Russia, Ukraine

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

JohnKerry:Nothingisoffthetablein

John Kerry: Nothing is off the table in Iraq, but working with Iran is off the table

posted at 11:21 am on June 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Via Mediaite, I’m honestly surprised. Partly because … he himself implied it was very much on the table a few days ago:

Prodded on whether the United States would consider cooperating militarily with Iran, Kerry replied: “Let’s see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements.”

But “I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together — the integrity of the country — and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart,” the top U.S. diplomat told Couric.

“I wouldn’t rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability, a respect for the (Iraqi) constitution, a respect for the election process, and a respect for the ability of the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all of the interests of Iraq — not one sectarian group over another,” he said.

Today he’s claiming he meant we should be open to talking to Iran about Iraq but not outright cooperation. If we’re not talking about cooperation, er, what are we talking about?

I’m surprised because I thought O and Kerry would be eager to use the ISIS threat as a new reason to make nice with Iran, which would in theory give them extra political cover to sell a lame nuclear deal with Tehran to American voters later. “See? We can trust them! Sort of. On a few things.” Could be that they wanted to go that route but simply caught too much flak for it behind the scenes from congressional Dems who support Israel. Having David Petraeus warning audiences that we can’t be the air force for Shia militias isn’t helping either. Or, it could be that the White House tried to make nice with Iran but were rebuffed. Rouhani, the country’s new “moderate” president, made some noises about working with the U.S. the other day but the military seems to have kiboshed that idea, calling the U.S. “sponsors and supporters of terrorists in the region.” More likely, I think, is that Iran is deliberately playing good cop/bad cop with Rouhani and the military to build leverage with the White House in nuclear negotiations. Sure, they’ll coordinate with the U.S. against ISIS — if we play ball on nukes first. Obama and Kerry aren’t going for it. Not sure why.

Another possibility: The U.S. has decided that Iran’s proxy, Maliki, absolutely must go, and Iran will never go along with that. Which means cooperation is DOA.

The Obama administration is signaling that it wants a new government in Iraq without Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, convinced the Shiite leader is unable to reconcile with the nation’s Sunni minority and stabilize a volatile political landscape.

The U.S. administration is indicating it wants Iraq’s political parties to form a new government without Mr. Maliki as he tries to assemble a ruling coalition following elections this past April, U.S. officials say.

Such a new government, U.S., officials say, would include the country’s Sunni and Kurdish communities and could help to stem Sunni support for the al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, that has seized control of Iraqi cities over the past two weeks. That, the officials argue, would help to unify the country and reverse its slide into sectarian division.

Right, but Iran doesn’t want that. They’re winning, sort of, in Syria and they’re convinced they can win in Iraq too, especially if Iraqi Shiites end up being radicalized by the war with ISIS and decide to start “cleansing” Anbar province. They’ve got the numbers in Iraq, so why would Iran agree to dump Maliki in favor of someone who’d play nicer with the Sunnis and Kurds? Maliki’s already ruled out quitting as a condition of U.S. help, knowing that Iran will back him up even if the U.S. doesn’t. And besides, even if he agreed to quit, the new prime minister would probably end up facing an insurgent threat from the Shiites instigated by Iran to try to destabilize the government and force him from power. “Cooperating” with Iran means bringing about total Shiite dominance of the country, which means total victory for the mullahs. Maybe even Obama and Kerry think that’s a bridge too far. Or, more likely, that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey do, and Obama realizes he can’t afford to lose their cooperation in other regional matters.

Exit question: See how Kerry sneers about Dick Cheney having led the U.S. into Iraq? Didn’t Senator Kerry, foreign-policy genius, vote for that invasion?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Iran, Iraq, ISIS, kerry, maliki

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Kerry:Fine,Republicans,I’llcomplywithyourBenghazi

Kerry: Fine, Republicans, I’ll comply with your Benghazi subpoena

posted at 8:11 pm on May 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Actually, the money line here is “I look forward to complying with whatever responsibilities we have,” which subtly raises the possibility of claiming executive privilege. If, constitutionally, they’re not required to comply then they don’t have any such responsibility. Does this sound like a man who’s eager to turn stuff over?

The secretary appeared to preemptively dismiss the questions raised about why an email from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, not previously released but obtained by FOIA request and lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch, had not been made public earlier. The White House has said that this email, which included talking points about violence linked to an anti-Islamic video, was not included in previous releases because Rhodes himself was not covered by the subpoenas.

“The fact is that documents require a legal process,” Kerry said.

Realistically, though, is there any way to claim privilege at this point without it looking impossibly shady? Kerry’s whole point is that they have nothing to hide, the proof of which is that they’ve already turned over thousands of documents and provided testimony, including some from Hillary Clinton. Hammering that point is key to their argument that this is another time-wasting Republican fishing expedition. If they suddenly clam up once a select committee gavels into session, it’ll have the appearance of a suspect demanding a lawyer just as the questions in his interrogation get tough. Why would you do that if you’re trying to convince the public that this is the mother of all nothingburgers? In fact, Kerry ended up saying, “I’ve guaranteed that we would cooperate in every single way. We have and we will.” That’s the smart play, provided there’s no smoking-gun document buried in the archives. The Benghazi saga is sufficiently convoluted by now that most low-information voters will zone out from the select committee, I suspect. No reason for the White House to risk waking them up by putting up an ostentatious fight over which documents it’s legally entitled to suppress.

How does “we’ll comply” fit with the idea of House Democrats possibly boycotting the committee, though? If it’s a kangaroo court that no one should take seriously, illegitimate to the point that Dems won’t even dignify it by participating, then why wouldn’t Kerry resist turning over documents? He might lose in court and it might backfire by looking suspiciously defensive, but if Democrats are serious about “controversializing” this process, they might as well go the whole nine yards.

Update: Pelosi’s demand for equal representation on the committee is denied.

House Republicans have decided the select committee to investigate the Benghazi terror attack will include seven Republicans and five Democrats, according to two senior House GOP leadership aides…

Earlier Tuesday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi demanded it be evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

Now that the committee’s structure has been decided, it’s unclear whether Democrats will participate.

Tags: Benghazi, comply, issa, kerry, oversight, subpoena

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

JohnKerry:Let’sfaceit,thingsweresimpler

John Kerry: Let’s face it, things were simpler during the Cold War

posted at 6:41 pm on April 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

Here’s what he means by “simpler”:

“The choices were less varied, less complicated, more stark, more clear: Communism, democracy, West, East, the Iron Curtain.”

He said “multiple emerging powers,” unleashed forces like radical Islam, and “too many failed states” have dramatically complicated the landscape, requiring a form of diplomatic precision that was not absolutely necessary decades ago.

In the post-war 1950s and 1960s, Kerry said, “we could make really bad decisions and still win, because we were pretty much the sole dominant economic and military power around.

“It’s not true any more.”

Good question from PJ Media blogger/Hot Air alumnus Bryan Preston. If things were simpler then, how come so many leftists got them wrong?

Kerry supported the 1980s nuclear freeze movement, which was Soviet-funded in the West and aimed to disarm the free world of our nuclear deterrent. Ted Kennedy was working with the Soviets behind Reagan’s back, according to his KGB files. Numerous Democrats actually believed that Ronald Reagan was more of a threat to the world than any Soviet premier.

For his part, Kerry even got the war he fought in wrong. Vietnam was about containing international communism. He made it about smearing his fellow soldiers, with all that “Jenghis Ghan” stuff. When America abandoned Vietnam, as Kerry wanted, the communists went on a rampage and killed hundreds of thousands over the next several years.

The world is safer now than it was during the Cold War and nearly everywhere violence is in decline, which, if you specialize in diplomacy, I suppose does make your job harder. In the past, the threat of global nuclear war would have made Russia think twice about pushing too far west. Nowadays, as more international conflict is channeled into diplomatic standoffs, more subtle deterrents are required. I’d call that progress, if only for reasons of self-interest, but the thought of Waffles having to work longer hours than earlier secretaries of state does make me sad. Another key reason things were “simpler” during the Cold War is the white-knuckle terror felt by countries throughout Eurasia that the Red Army might suddenly show up in their capitals one day. It wasn’t so much America’s power that bought carte blanche for U.S. diplomats as it was Soviet power and the fear it generated in nonaligned states. When the USSR fell apart and that fear started to fade, so did some of the incentive among U.S. allies to cooperate with us.

But here’s the “good” news. Given how easy it was for Putin to seize Crimea and how little he seems to care about Obama’s latest “red line” for eastern Ukraine, you may start seeing some of the old jitters about Russia creep back into the foreign-poilicy calculations of European and Asian states. And that’ll make things “easier” for Kerry. In fact, maybe that’s O’s international legacy: He presided over Russia’s return to menacing-superpower status, which in turn launched Cold War II and made things “simple” for the State Department. That’s change you can believe it.

Tags: Cold War, Crimea, invasion, kerry, Russia, simpler, Ukraine

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

IsKerryabetterSecretaryofStatethan

Is Kerry a better Secretary of State than Hillary?

posted at 2:01 pm on April 21, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Truth Revolt, it’s David Ignatius who raises the question in the clip but you may find big-name Republicans pushing this point in 2016. I’ve wondered about this myself and go back and forth on it: Would it be better or worse for the GOP if Kerry banks some sort of major diplomatic accomplishment over the next three years? I don’t mean the peace process; nothing’s going to happen with that. But what if, say, UN inspectors verify that Assad has indeed disgorged his chemical weapons per the U.S./Russia disarmament deal? What if, for whatever reason, Putin decides that things have gone far enough in Ukraine and resolves to play (relatively) nice going forward? What if, miracle of miracles, Iran really does freeze its nuclear program in return for sanctions being lifted? Those would all be big deals foreign-policy-wise, in increasing order of bigness. If one or more of them happens before 2016, where does that leave the Democratic nominee-in-waiting?

Republicans will argue, a la Ignatius, that Kerry’s success is smoking-gun proof of Hillary’s failure, that he managed to achieve things that she couldn’t. That slides perfectly into the growing realization that, for all the hype, Hillary has nothing to show from her 20 years of Senate and near-presidential service. She did lots of shuttle diplomacy as Secretary of State but never seemed to be in the thick of big-ticket international confrontations like Kerry has on Syria, Iran, Russia, and Israel and the Palestinians. The one arguable exception is Libya and that ended up producing her biggest foreign-policy liability in Benghazi. Contrasting her record with Kerry’s is potentially an effective way, I think, to get lower-information voters to see that the emperor has no clothes. In the abstract, they might not give much thought to the “she has no accomplishments!” claims simply because people tend to conflate fame with achievement and she has, after all, been famous for a very long time. Set up a direct comparison with Kerry, though, and it’s harder to ignore the point. Why aren’t Democrats clamoring to nominate him (again) instead of her? Hard to say.

Three potential problems with this approach, though. One: In order to indict Hillary, Republicans will have to celebrate Kerry’s achievements to some degree. How likely is that? If they spend six months tearing him and O to shreds for naivete in negotiating a nuclear freeze with Iran, how do they then turn around and salute him for having accomplished something Hillary never did? Two: Kerry himself will doubtless be a loyal soldier for Hillary, crediting her with having “laid the groundwork” or whatever for his achievements at State. (President Hillary might even keep him on as SoS in gratitude.) If you’ve got Republicans running around praising Kerry and then Kerry turns around and says he owes it all to Hillary, that’s an … unhelpful message for the GOP. Three: Hillary’s not going to be running on her record as Secretary of State, she’s going to be running on her experience, both direct and vicarious from having served at the highest levels in two Democratic administrations. She may have nothing to show for her service but she knows how things work; she won’t be caught by surprise as commander-in-chief and she won’t stumble around in trying to get legislation passed like Obama has. She’s running as the first woman president and for a third Clinton/Obama term. Her achievements are beside the point. If the public buys that narrative frame, then why would the GOP’s arguments about how much better Kerry is as a diplomat matter? But then, if the public buys that frame, no argument from Republicans will matter much.

Tags: david ignatius, dynamic, hillary, Israel, kerry, palestinians, Russia, Secretary of State

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

What’s so important about Israel being a “Jewish State,” anyway?

What’ssoimportantaboutIsraelbeinga“Jewish

RussianFMaftermeetingwithKerry:Russiahas

Russian FM after meeting with Kerry: Russia has no “common vision” on Crimea with the west

posted at 2:01 pm on March 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

The Crimean referendum on independence is Sunday. Western sanctions are set to take effect Monday. Today’s meeting was the last grasp for a deal before the two sides dig in.

No deal.

“We do not have a common vision of the situation,” Sergei Lavrov told journalists in London through an interpreter, adding that the “dialogue was constructive.”…

Lavrov also told reporters that Russia had no plans to invade southeastern Ukraine.

“The Russian Federation does not and cannot have any plans to invade the southeastern regions of Ukraine,” he said…

Lavrov also said Crimea – which was part of the Soviet Union before the end of communism – was of “immeasurable” value to Russia, and meant more to his country than the Falklands mean to Britain.

Here’s what Lavrov means he says they have no plans for a broader invasion:

Lavrov says Russia has "no plans to invade southeastern Ukraine," by which he means such a plan may materialize at any moment

— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) March 14, 2014

Russian troops are now massing in three different border regions to Ukraine’s east. Could be that the Crimea referendum is itself largely a pretext for a broader invasion: If there are any protests or skirmishes in the south or east in response to the vote, which seems highly likely, that’s Putin’s cue to claim that ethnic Russians throughout the rest of Ukraine are in danger and need “rescuing.” In fact, per The Interpreter, Lavrov refused to acknowledge at today’s meeting that Russia has invaded Crimea. They’re still sticking to the transparent fiction that the troops now in control of the province are some sort of mysterious homegrown element that’s keeping the peace lest it explode from ethnic tensions. Can’t wait to find out next week where the 200,000 men in camouflage patrolling eastern Ukraine supposedly came from.

Kerry warned him today that the west won’t recognize the results of the referendum under these circumstances, as if Lavrov cares. On the contrary, Moscow’s focused right now on preparing Russians for confrontation with the west and its sympathizers:

But then came the day a Moscow acquaintance announced on Facebook that her daughter, a first-grader, came home from school in a panic because the teacher had told the class that America was about to invade Russia. But then television host and attack dog Dmitry Kiselev went after the “radicals” in Kiev in a special broadcast dedicated to Ukraine, saying that the transfer of Crime to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954 was “a historical crime” and blaming the dissolution of Yugoslavia on the West. “What is Yugoslavia now? A pimple on the body of Europe.”…

Yesterday, Ekho Moskvy, the biggest Moscow radio station who had its website blocked yesterday, invited on the air the editor of Den, a strange Moscow paper, said the crackdown on the press was necessary because the West had waged “an information war” against Russia, to which Russia had to present a united front. A family friend wrote from Moscow in shock: His television was telling him the internet is for radicals and perverts, which, to him, was a clear foreshadowing of a great firewall with the West. (Other Moscow friends, all liberals, are beginning to get seriously depressed. One describes a foreboding feeling that a civil war is near, another asked for the number of a good immigration lawyer in the U.S.)…

Here’s what’s scary about this: this is all being done, according to various reports, without any consultation with anyone outside Putin’s shrinking inner circle of old KGB spooks. The economic elites most likely to suffer from a plummeting ruble and sanctions have been shut out of the decision-making process. This is all about intangibles, the things that reason can’t hook, the things impervious to logic and reasoning and even the cynical algebra of geopolitical interests.

So, yeah. To put it mildly, between this and the fact that 69 percent of Americans now see Russia as a threat to the U.S., there is indeed no “common vision.”

Tags: crimea, invasion, kerry, lavrov, Russia, Ukraine

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Video:KerrystunnedtolearnPutindeniedthat

Video: Kerry stunned to learn Putin denied that Russian troops are in Crimea

posted at 4:41 pm on March 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, I don’t think this is evidence that Kerry, like Obama on so many matters, seems to be getting his news from TV rather than from his briefers. I think it’s evidence that he had a busy day. He was in Kiev all morning meeting with the opposition and probably didn’t have a chance to watch Putin’s presser before holding his own.

Worth linking anyway, though, as further evidence that the alleged geopolitical grand master is making some … strange plays lately. What’s the point in continuing to deny that the guys in fatigues carrying Kalashnikovs and driving around Crimea in Russian personnel carriers are Russian troops? What does Putin gain from it? See why even people who know him, like Angela Merkel, think he’s starting to lose it? Julia Ioffe, TNR’s veteran Putin critic, watched today’s press conference and came to the same conclusion as Merkel:

Gone was the old Putin, the one who loves these kinds of press events. He’d come a long way from the painfully awkward gray FSB officer on Larry King, a year into his tenure. He had grown to become the master of public speaking, who had turned his churlish, prison-inflected slang to his benefit. A salty guy in utter command of a crowd. That Putin was not the Putin we saw today. Today’s Putin was nervous, angry, cornered, and paranoid, periodically illuminated by flashes of his own righteousness. Here was an authoritarian dancing uncomfortably in his new dictator shoes, squirming in his throne.

For the last few years, it has become something like conventional knowledge in Moscow journalistic circles that Putin was no longer getting good information, that he was surrounded by yes-men who created for him a parallel informational universe. “They’re beginning to believe their own propaganda,” Gleb Pavlovsky told me when I was in Moscow in December…

Merkel was absolutely right: Putin has lost it. Unfortunately, it makes him that much harder to deal with.

A couple of Twitter pals argued with me about this earlier today, claiming that it’s dangerous nonsense to dismiss Putin’s lurch towards Crimea as the act of a madman. And that’s true, to an extent: I gave you a perfectly rational reason in the last post to explain why he’d seize a province that neither faced nor posed any threat. The thing is, “rational” and “delusional” aren’t perfectly mutually exclusive. A strongman who really is starting to believe his own BS may respond rationally within the parameters of the delusion he’s created for himself. To see what I mean, read David Brooks’s piece today about the goofy, messianic Russian nationalist propaganda that Putin’s spent years ingesting. He may believe, quite rationally, that he needed to make a show of strength in Crimea to intimidate other Russian satellites into joining his new Eurasian Union. He may simultaneously believe, not so rationally, that Russia is destined to unite east and west in some sort of spiritual utopia, if only the decadent Americans will stop obstructing him. If he sees Ukraine tilting away, and then maybe Belarus or Lithuania, what happens to that vision? How far would he go to protect it? If he’s perfectly rational and all the garbage spewed by the Kremlin about Nazis taking over Kiev is just cynical propaganda, there’s nothing much to worry about. But what if he isn’t?

Exit question: If Kerry’s going to indict Putin for failing to work through international institutions like the UN (there’s that dopey “19th century versus 21st century” talking point again), which he did at length in today’s presser, why doesn’t he read from Putin’s own op-ed in the NYT last year? Remember that? Right after he got done thoroughly humiliating Obama over his phantom Syria “red line,” Putin decided to spike the ball by extolling the virtues of the United Nations in America’s leading newspaper. Actual quote: “No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.” If that’s his rule, make him live by it.

Tags: crimea, invasion, kerry, NATO, putin, Russia, troops, Ukraine, UN

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Flashback: Obama, Kerry ridiculed Romney over Russia

Flashback:Obama,KerryridiculedRomneyoverRussia

AsRussiatakesoverCrimea,Kerry,Carneywarn

As Russia takes over Crimea, Kerry, Carney warn Putin not to cross the “line”

posted at 2:01 pm on February 28, 2014 by Allahpundit

In their defense, what else can they say? If they say nothing, they’ll be pilloried for silence in the face of aggression. If they get too explicit about the consequences of line-crossing, everyone will think of Obama’s humiliation over his Syria “red line” and laugh. There’s nothing the U.S. can do to stop Russia from knocking heads and reclaiming Crimea if it wants to. Which means all that’s left is the traditional stern yet scrupulously vague admonishment.

Kerry, in comments that highlighted Washington’s rising suspicion of Moscow, said the U.S. is watching to see if Russian activity in Crimea “might be crossing a line in any way.” He added that the administration would be “very careful” in making judgments about that.

“While we were told that they are not engaging in any violation of the sovereignty and do not intend to, I nevertheless made it clear that could be misinterpreted at this moment,” Kerry said. “There are enough tensions that it is important for everybody to be extremely careful not to inflame the situation and not send the wrong messages.”

Meanwhile:

Carney says US watching closely to see if Russia crosses "intervention line" in Ukraine.

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) February 28, 2014

What on earth is an “intervention line” and how has Russia not already crossed it? AP photographers snapped pics this morning of Russian personnel carriers on the move inside Crimea:

BREAKING: AP in #Crimea spots convoy of Russian armored personnel carriers en route to capital http://t.co/BZhOPl2RHe pic.twitter.com/mjPeVQfCb9

— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) February 28, 2014

Between that and the seizure of the airports in Sevastopol and Simferopol, for which, apparently, Russia is now admitting responsibility, Ukraine’s new interior minister says this has become a “military invasion and occupation.” Seems like the fabled “intervention line” has been crossed. Then again, if there’s any one lesson to take from the Syria “red line” debacle, it’s that the White House is willing to look the other way repeatedly at violations in order to avoid having to enforce its lines. Remember, Assad’s side was accused more than once of chemical attacks before the big one last August that finally compelled the White House to act. Could be that Obama and Kerry are following a similar approach here: So long as the movements of Russian troops can kinda sorta be explained as defense of their naval bases in Crimea, that’s technically not an “intervention.” Just like, er, this isn’t an intervention either:

Crimean airport: All incoming and outgoing flights cancelled tonight. Airspace closed. #Simferopol #Crimea #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/pqVbpE1W9x

— George (@ArtWendeley) February 28, 2014

Ukraine's Channel 5 TV reports that telephone hubs in Crimea have been blocked http://t.co/lH9gBOb4pH

— joshuafoust (@joshuafoust) February 28, 2014

The White House’s plan, I assume, is to hope that Putin will be satisfied with this little bit of muscle-flexing and agree to talks on the disposition of the country rather than take parts of it by force. The goal is probably partition: If the choice is between letting eastern Ukraine and Crimea leave and a major war that Russia will have much more interest in prosecuting than the EU will, why not try to secure Russian acquiescence in letting western Ukraine go and call it a day? The Russians aren’t waiting around on their end of this:

There was a draft law debated to this effect in the Russian State Duma. Now, this announcement on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Facebook page:

“Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Simferopol urgently requested to take all necessary steps to start issuing Russian passports to members of the “Berkut” fighting force.”

In other words, Russia is now urging the nationalization of Yanukovych’s riot police.

Why is this important? Before Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 they issued passports to ethnic Russians.

At now, the Russian State Duma is discussing a draft law for adding a new subject of the Russian Federation, i.e. Crimea. In other words, Russia is taking many steps that it took before invading Georgia. This looks to be an attempt to annex Crimea.

I’m … reasonably sure that full annexation would cross the “intervention line,” requiring some sort of U.S. response, but we’ve been through too much to underestimate O’s ability to retreat from his own ultimatums. Stay tuned.

Update: The fact that Kerry’s saying things like this makes me think Russia’s not too worried about crossing anyone’s line.

Tags: carney, crimea, kerry, putin, Russia, sevastopol, Ukraine

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Surprise:Syriamissesfirstmajordeadlineforchemical

Surprise: Syria misses first major deadline for chemical weapons surrender

posted at 7:01 pm on January 3, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

Oh yeah, Syria. If you’ll remember, there was about a week and a half in 2013 where it was vitally important we get involved in an armed conflict with Syria because after slaughtering thousands of his citizens with conventional weapons, Bashar al-Assad (a “reformer” in the words of the likely Democratic nominee for 2016) started slaughtering them with chemical weapons. This had the unfortunate side effect (aside from the thousands of dead Syrians) of requiring President Obama to treat what he had called a “red line” as an actual “red line.” And, thus began the push in the White House and the compliant media for an “unbelievably small,” Congressionally unauthorized military action in the country.

After one Rose Garden speech on the necessity of military action, followed by a Congressional revolt, one prime time speech to walk back the Rose Garden speech designed to head off a crushing defeat in a Congressional vote Obama was forced to ask for, and 10 days of bumbling “smart power” embarrassment, the president grabbed the first gaffe raft he could find upon which to float. That was Sec. of State John Kerry’s accidental aside suggesting that Syria could spare itself strikes if it just decided to give up its weapons to the international community— a scenario Kerry himself immediately dismissed as unrealistic, the State Dept. later dismissed as mere “hypothetical,” and the Obama administration embraced as awesome policy after the Russians and Syrians signaled they thought it was a dandy idea.

Super! I’m sure this will work out great. Fast forward to 2014:

U.S. officials conceded that a Tuesday deadline for ridding Syria of hundreds of tons of liquid poisons would not be met, citing stalled progress in transporting the chemicals across war-ravaged countryside to ships that will carry them out of the region. But the officials insisted that the overall effort to destroy President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical arsenal was on track.

“We continue to make progress, which has been the important part,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters. “It was always an ambitious timeline, but we are still operating on the June 30th timeline for the complete destruction.”

The group overseeing the elimination of Syria’s stockpile, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, blamed bad weather and security problems for delays in removing liquid chemicals from a dozen storage depots scattered across the country.

Russia has provided Syria with trucks to carry the toxins to Danish and Norwegian ships waiting in the port of Latakia, but as recently as Sunday, Syrian officials had made no effort to load the trucks, according to U.S. officials familiar with the operation.

Yes, progress is what’s important:

The Obama administration has sought to play down the missed deadline, with officials suggesting the plan to remove President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical arsenal remains on track. “As long as we see forward progress that’s what’s most important here, and we have,” Marie Harf, the US state department’s deputy spokesperson, said on Monday…

Syria’s non-compliance will raise fears that the Assad regime may intend to delay the process for as long as possible. Further delays would highlight the west’s impotence and paralyse the debate over intervention. The missed deadline comes at a time when some western leaders privately concede that Assad’s continued survival is Syria’s least worst option.

Yes, it might raise that fear— a fear that was entirely predictable in 2013 when we first had this debate.

Hey, look on the bright side. Now, Obama has a fellow Nobel Peace Prize Winner almost as deserving as he was. That team can’t help but crack this case. Peace is nigh.

Tags: chemical weapons, kerry, Nobel Peace Prize, Syria

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

MarkHalperinpredicts:IfHillarydoesn’trunfor

Mark Halperin predicts: If Hillary doesn’t run for president, John Kerry will

posted at 4:21 pm on December 9, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Matt Lewis and Mediaite. Masterful trolling, just because it implicitly poses the one question more than any other that the Clintons don’t want people asking: What is it that makes Hillary so great? The starkest illustration of that point, at least for the moment, is comparing her to her successor at State. In less than a year on the job, he stumbled his way into a deal to disarm Assad of his chemical weapons and just polished off a second one that would, if it holds, limit the extent of Iranian enrichment for six months. In four years on the job, Hillary … traveled a lot, and presided over the Department when the Benghazi consulate was overrun. Politico Magazine has a piece out just today, in fact, wondering whether Kerry already qualifies as a more successful secretary of state than she does, and they’re not the first major magazine to ask that lately.

Beyond their diplomatic records, by most conventional measurements of experience, Kerry’s got her beat. She spent eight years in the Senate. He spent 28. Kerry won his party’s nomination once before and came within two points in Ohio of winning the presidency. Hillary, despite having had a popular former president as her chief surrogate and a huge early advantage in money and name recognition, ended up losing to the upstart Obama because he recognized the potential for caucus states to deliver an insuperable margin of delegates better than she did. Hillary does have an advantage over Kerry in age — she’ll be 69 on election day 2016 whereas he’ll be (almost) 73. But so what? McCain was 72 on election day 2008 and it’s Hillary, not Kerry, who’s had the more conspicuous health problems. If he spends the next three years traveling on diplomatic errands with no signs of slowing down, Americans would have every reason to think he’s up to the job. The argument for Hillary over Kerry, such as it is, is that (a) he’s “had his chance” at the presidency, even though arguably she did too, and (b) more significantly, she’d certainly do better holding onto disaffected white women voters than anyone else in the party would. Which is to say, if you’re analyzing “why Hillary?” from the perspective of credentials or accomplishments, you’re approaching the question from the wrong angle. If anything, she might end up relying more heavily in 2016 on the historic nature of her candidacy as a key credential than Obama did in 2008.

But all of this is academic. Kerry’s not going to run if she does. The question Halperin’s asking is, what if she doesn’t? Kerry would also have to step aside for Biden if he decides he wants to run, right? The idea of Diamond Joe becoming President Joe is ridiculous, but he does outrank Kerry within the administration; if you’re trying to choose between two top Obama officials because you like O’s policies, why wouldn’t you choose the higher-ranking one? But assume Biden doesn’t run either. Why wouldn’t Kerry, having struck a few high-profile deals as secretary of state, try to do what Nixon did and run again after a hiatus from presidential politics? Compared to Martin O’Malley or Andrew Cuomo, the guy would actually have some gravitas. I don’t think it’s likely that he runs, but if he sees a vacuum, I’m not sure why he’d rule out trying to fill it.

Tags: 2016, halperin, hillary, kerry, President

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair