Displaying posts published in

May 2017

The Mueller Caveat His integrity is unquestioned. But can he be objective toward Comey? By Kimberley A. Strassel

Professional medical organizations have a simple guideline: It’s a bad idea for doctors to treat their friends or relatives. No matter how skilled, no matter how upright, a doctor who does risks losing his objectivity. The big question is whether this applies to Washington’s new scandal doctor, Robert Mueller.

In tapping Mr. Mueller as special counsel to look into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has certainly doused the political flames. Democrats were forced to tone down their chant for instant impeachment. Republicans were able to step back from the escalating headlines.

That’s because the new guy is as skilled and upright as they come. A Robert Mueller word-association game would go something like this: integrity, honor, respect, order, discipline, honesty, fairness. He is a decorated Marine, a Princeton grad, a respected federal prosecutor and a former FBI director. Mr. Mueller has tackled strongmen and terrorists, working under Republicans and Democrats. He has little use for the press or the limelight, which—in the current hysterical environment—is a singular qualification.

In short, nobody doubts Mr. Mueller will lead as professional an investigation as he is capable of conducting. It’s the “capable” bit that provides the one note of concern.

Mr. Mueller is no doctor. But he is part of the brotherhood of prosecutors. Justice Department attorneys have their squabbles and differences, but they count themselves as a legal elite, charged with a noble purpose. They largely keep their own counsel and aren’t much for outside criticism.

The FBI’s culture is even more famous and pronounced. Tens of thousands of special agents and staff from different backgrounds come together to protect the country from criminals and terrorists. Outside the military, no other Washington body rivals the FBI’s esprit de corps. CONTINUE AT SITE

Behind the Scenes of the Trump Administration’s Tug-of-war Over the Israel Embassy Move by Barak Ravid and Amir Tibon

Keep the embassy in Tel Aviv or move it to Jerusalem? The issue has turned into a fierce struggle between Trump’s advisers and his top cabinet members. He has until June 1 to decide.

A large whiteboard hangs in the office of Steve Bannon, U.S. President Donald Trump’s strategic advisor. In closely packed lines of black marker, it lists Trump’s campaign promises – a kind of to-do list. One of the first goals in the foreign affairs and defense category is moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Two competing groups of senior Trump administration officials have been waging war over this issue for over four months, beginning during the transition period before Trump took office. On one side are some of his closest senior political advisors and appointments; on the other are leading cabinet ministers and most of the professional civil servants.

A senior Israeli official who heard from one of Trump’s advisors said that before Trump’s January 20 inauguration, there was a fierce argument over whether a pledge to move the embassy should be included in his inaugural address. The Prime Minister’s Office awaited the speech with a mix of anticipation and trepidation, but discovered that the opponents won out, and the embassy move was dropped from the speech.

The battle is expected to continue even after Trump’s visit to the Middle East, right up until June 1 – the date on which the presidential waiver signed by former U.S. President Barack Obama six months ago, which froze the embassy’s move to Jerusalem, will expire.

According to several people familiar with the administration’s internal debates – both in Israel and America, all of whom asked to remain anonymous – the group urging Trump to refuse to sign the waiver and finally move the embassy is headed by Bannon himself. A number of these sources told Haaretz that Bannon doesn’t see the embassy move as a promise by Trump to Israel, but as a promise to the president’s right-wing nationalist base that put him in the White House.

“He understands that many of the president’s voters want to see this promise kept,” said a former senior U.S. official who is in touch with the current administration.

Another dominant figure in the group pushing for the embassy move is new U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman. During the campaign, it was Friedman who, in interviews with both the American and the Israeli media, repeatedly stressed Trump’s promise to move the embassy. Last December, when Trump appointed him as ambassador, he said he would work to strengthen ties between America and Israel, “and look forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

Ever since Trump took office on January 20, Friedman has been pushing the president to keep his promise. In an interview with the daily Israel Hayom this week, Freidman said he gave the president his personal opinion on the matter. But two administration officials said Friedman did much more than that. “Friedman is working on the embassy issue all the time,” one said.

Friedman, who submitted his credentials to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin this week, immediately began preparing senior Israeli officials for the possibility that his efforts will fail and Trump will decide not to move the embassy at this stage. “Even if it doesn’t happen now, it will happen later,” he told one of his Israeli interlocutors. “Don’t press. Give us time.”

Trump’s Goes to Saudi Arabia and Jerusalem By Rachel Ehrenfeld

On his way to Riyadh, President Trump should watch Noam Chomsky’s TV interview on May 17, talking about Saudi Arabia. Chomsky’s observation of the Desert Kingdom might help remind the President who the Saudis really are. “Saudi Arabia is the center of radical Islamic extremism” Chomsky stated. “The spread of Saudi extremist Wahhabi doctrine over the Sunni world is one of the real disasters of the modern era. It’s a source of not only funding for extremist radical Islam and the jihadi outgrowths of it, but also, doctrinally, mosques, clerics, schools, madrassas (where you study just Qur’an), is spreading all over the huge Sunni areas from Saudi influence,” he added.

Trump, however, is not going to Saudi Arabia to pick a fight. His advisors explained that the President’s goal is tp show his support to the Sunni Muslim world.

According to National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, the President’s speech at the opening ceremony of yet another Saudi center “for fighting radicalism and promoting moderation,” would incredibly focus on “a peaceful vision of Islam to dominate across the world.” (added emphasis).

We will have to wait until the President deliver his speech. But based on what McMaster’s briefing, Trump’s speech is likely to echo President Obama’s speech on June 4, 2009, in Cairo, in which he falsely attributed “tolerance and racial equality” to Islam, and whitewashed Islamic terrorism, claiming: “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” While the leaders of some 50 countries with a Muslim majority would no doubt be delighted, this is strange coming from a U.S. General who spent years leading the battle against violent Sunni and Shia Muslim extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Trump administration’s effort to help a Sunni coalition against ISIS and Iran is important, because “We all have the same enemy and we all want the same thing.”Is there no one in the administration to remember and remind Trump what happened when the U.S. helped the Sunni Taliban to defeat the former Soviet Union? Al Qaeda happened.