ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Why the U.S. Should Stand by the Saudis Against Iran Much about the House of Saud is detestable, but that isn’t a reason to abandon a vital ally. Bret Stephens

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

There is so much to detest about Saudi Arabia. The kingdom forbids women from driving and bars its doors to desperate Syrian refugees. For years its sybaritic leaders purchased their legitimacy by underwriting, and exporting, a bigoted and brutal version of Sunni Islam. Crude oil aside, it’s difficult to find much of value produced by the desert kingdom.

More recently, the Saudis have increased tensions with Iran by executing, over U.S. objections, a prominent radical Shiite cleric while waging a brutal war against Iran’s Shiite proxies in Yemen. So why should the U.S. feel obliged to take sides with the country that Israeli diplomat Dore Gold once called “Hatred’s Kingdom,” especially when the administration is also trying to pursue further opening with Tehran?

That’s a question that suddenly seems to be on Washington’s liberal foreign-policy minds, as if they’ve just discovered that we don’t exactly share Saudi moral values. Some on the right also seem to think that, with the U.S. leading the world in energy production, we no longer have much use for the Saudi alliance.

So let’s remind ourselves why it would be a bad—make that very bad—idea for the U.S. to abandon the House of Saud, especially when it is under increasing economic strain from falling oil prices and feels acutely threatened by a resurgent Iran. Despite fond White House hopes that the nuclear deal would moderate Iran’s behavior, Tehran hard-liners wasted no time this week disqualifying thousands of moderate candidates from running in next month’s parliamentary elections, and an Iranian-backed militia appears to be responsible for the recent kidnapping of three Americans in Iraq.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Petraeus Vendetta The Pentagon may strip the former general of a star. And Hillary? see note please

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

I am no fan of David Petraeus for his rules of engagement which put our soldiers at higher risk to avoid offending the sensibilities of Moslem enemies, nor, do I think the “surge” saved Iraq…. but this is pure hypocrisy….rsk

Whatever more may come in the career of David Petraeus, historians will remember him as one of America’s outstanding military men, whose “surge” strategy saved Iraq from chaos before President Obama squandered its gains. So what does it say of the Obama Administration’s priorities or sense of proportion that it may strip the retired general of one of his four stars, thereby docking his Army pension?

We’ll assume this isn’t Ashton Carter’s idea of parsimony, though the Secretary of Defense took up the case after then-Army Secretary John McHugh decided last year to take no action against the former general for sharing classified documents with his biographer and paramour Paula Broadwell. The breach was exposed in 2012 when Mr. Petraeus was CIA director. He lost his job and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling classified information and was punished with two years probation and a $100,000 fine. That and his public humiliation are punishment enough.

The Pentagon’s case against him seems to rest on an FBI claim that he shared some of his personal notebooks with Ms. Broadwell days before he retired from the Army. To our knowledge none of the information in those notebooks was publicly disclosed by Ms. Broadwell or anyone else, and what the bureau seems to think is a high crime is what most journalists would call a leak.

This suggests that what’s mainly at work here is Pentagon vindictiveness, perhaps including an effort to derail Mr. Petraeus’s prospects in the next Administration. Great strategists aren’t abundant, as this Administration proves, and it would be a shame for a future President not to use Mr. Petraeus’s talents.

Meantime, it will be instructive to see how the suddenly punctilious Administration deals with a far graver case of mishandled classified information—the one involving a certain former junior U.S. Senator from New York.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary Clinton Emails Face New Scrutiny Former secretary of state’s private server included highly classified intelligence, review says; unclear whether information was deemed classified when sent By Byron Tau

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

WASHINGTON—Emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained national-security information classified at some of the highest levels, according to a new review by a government watchdog.

A letter from Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough finds that Mrs. Clinton’s email trove contains a type of highly classified intelligence information beyond “top secret,” referred to as “special access programs” or SAP. That designation is reserved for information shared on a need-to-know basis to protect intelligence sources, military operations or other highly sensitive government information.

In a separate review over the summer, Mr. McCullough’s office found “top secret” information on Mrs. Clinton’s home server. The new unclassified letter from Mr. McCullough to members of the House and Senate committees that oversee intelligence, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, says that the intelligence community now believes even more highly classified information was on the server. The letter was reported earlier by Fox News.

Mr. McCullough’s latest finding is that “several dozen” emails in Mrs. Clinton’s archive containing information classified at various levels, including SAP.

Most of Mrs. Clinton’s email trove of about 55,000 pages from her time in office has been released by the State Department. That includes more than 1,300 emails with some information blocked out, or redacted, because it is classified.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Supreme Court to Rule on Obama’s Bid to Block Deportations Sets the stage for a blockbuster ruling on presidential powers in key immigration case By Jess Bravin and Byron Tau

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court took up the divisive political issue of immigration on Tuesday, agreeing to rule by June on the Obama administration’s stalled plan to defer deportation of more than four million illegal immigrants.

The court’s move sets the stage for a blockbuster ruling on presidential powers just as the major parties settle on their 2016 nominees. As if the stakes weren’t high enough already, the justices added a provocative question to the case, asking the parties to address whether President Barack Obama violated his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The immigration case joins a docket loaded with politically charged issues that underscore the court’s relevance to the presidential campaign: Abortion rights, affirmative action, contraceptive coverage and public-employee union powers all are before the court.

The immigration dispute stems from Mr. Obama’s second-term embrace of executive action to shift policy, in the face of a Republican-controlled Congress that has stymied his legislative initiatives. From the campaign trail to Capitol Hill, Republicans have stated nearly universal opposition to Mr. Obama’s agenda on energy, guns and foreign relations, and criticized his use of executive authority.

The Supreme Court will rule on President Obama’s immigration plan that would defer deportation for parents of children born in the U.S.

The president has made no apologies. With Congress deadlocked over an immigration overhaul, Mr. Obama in November 2014 cited his authority to give a temporary reprieve to illegal immigrants whose children hold U.S. citizenship or permanent residency. The plan sought to prioritize the removal of serious criminals while allowing parents of these children to work without fear of deportation.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

For U.S., Taiwan Vote Changes Calculus Over ‘One China’ Washington less likely to indulge Beijing over its policy after victory of island’s pro-independence party By Andrew Browne

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

TAIPEI—No dogma is more important to Beijing than “One China,” the concept that Taiwan is a part of a single Chinese nation—just temporarily estranged.

America and much of the rest of the world acquiesce to that position, denying the reality that Taiwan has set its course as an independent state. Last weekend’s vote, in which the Taiwanese electorate overwhelming endorsed a party that rejects Beijing’s “One China” formula, confirmed the direction in the most emphatic way to date. That not only puts China in a bind, but the U.S. too.

Like it or not, the political equation has changed, forcing Washington to look at Taiwan in a different light.

To be sure, an American challenge to the “One China” doctrine is unthinkable. It’s the one move that could realistically provoke a war between the world’s two strongest powers. Yet some diplomats and scholars think that a postelection Taiwan may get more sympathetic treatment in Washington.

“Taiwan occupies a bit of a different space now,” says Donald Rodgers, a professor at Austin College in Texas, who was in Taiwan observing the elections.

He predicts the U.S. will be somewhat less worried about offending China by opening more direct channels of communication with Taiwan on issues from security to the environment and health. Such dialogue must now be conducted in a cloak-and-dagger style lest it suggests state-to-state relations. U.S. arms sales to Taiwan routinely incur Beijing’s wrath.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary Is in Big Trouble Clinton increasingly seems stuck in the past, dogged by wilting poll numbers and heavy baggage. By Fred Barnes

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

Presidential races are about the future and Hillary Clinton is stuck in the past. That pretty much explains why her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 has slumped.

Mrs. Clinton is not attuned to the political situation she faces. Her experience, family and fame aren’t much help. This year, angry voters have turned increasingly to populist, antiestablishment and future-oriented candidates. As a status quo candidate, she doesn’t fit the moment.

But her chief opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has captured it, just as Donald Trump has in the Republican presidential race. Mr. Sanders, 74, is a socialist from Vermont with a Brooklyn accent. But more than his left-wing ideology, it is his persistent calls for a “revolution” upending conventional politics that has brought him neck-and-neck with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa and ahead in New Hampshire, the first states to vote in the fight for the Democratic nomination.
We saw the difference between the two in Sunday night’s Democratic debate. She talked about preserving President Obama’s health-care program and the Dodd-Frank crackdown on Wall Street—in other words, the past. Mr. Sanders spoke of a future in which health care is inexpensive and a right for everyone, a future in which the wealthy cannot control politics with their campaign contributions and elect their allies.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

MORE ON AL JUBEIR

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

Britain should ‘respect’ Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty and stop kicking up a fuss about it, according to the country’s foreign minister.

Two weeks ago, Saudi Arabia executed 47 people in just one day, sparking widespread protests across the world.

Asked about the oil-rich country’s ‘terrible image problem’, Adel al-Jubeir told Channel 4 News: ‘Well on this issue we have a fundamental difference.

‘In your country, you do not execute people, we respect it.

‘In our country the death penalty is part of our laws and you have to respect this as it is the law, part of the law, in the United States and other countries.’

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

CAN IRAN CHANGE? By ADEL BIN AHMED AL-JUBEIR SEE NOTE

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — THE world is watching Iran for signs of change, hoping it will evolve from a rogue revolutionary state into a respectable member of the international community. But Iran, rather than confronting the isolation it has created for itself, opts to obscure its dangerous sectarian and expansionist policies, as well as its support for terrorism, by leveling unsubstantiated charges against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

It is important to understand why Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are committed to resisting Iranian expansion and responding forcefully to Iran’s acts of aggression.

Superficially, Iran may appear to have changed. We acknowledge Iran’s initial actions regarding the agreement to suspend its program to develop a nuclear weapon. Certainly, we know that a large segment of the Iranian population wants greater openness internally and better relations with neighboring countries and the world. But the government does not.

The Iranian government’s behavior has been consistent since the 1979 revolution. The constitution that Iran adopted states the objective of exporting the revolution. As a consequence, Iran has supported violent extremist groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and sectarian militias in Iraq. Iran or its proxies have been blamed for terrorist attacks around the world, including the bombings of the United States Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and the assassinations in the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin in 1992. And by some estimates Iranian-backed forces have killed over 1,100 American troops in Iraq since 2003.

The Saudis are changing their tune with respect to Israel. Jubeir is water carrier for the robed tyrants…rsk
Iran uses attacks on diplomatic sites as an instrument of its foreign policy. The 1979 takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran was only the beginning. Since then, embassies of Britain, Denmark, Kuwait, France, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been attacked in Iran or abroad by Iranian proxies. Foreign diplomats and domestic political opponents have been assassinated around the world.

BOOKS Comments turned off

RUTHIE BLUM: US AMBASSADOR DAN SHAPIRO AND HIS DELEGITIMATION SPEECH

Posted By on January 20th, 2016

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro did his administration proud on Monday. His boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, couldn’t have done a better job of twisting reality to suit fantasy.

At the annual Institute for National Security Studies conference in Tel Aviv, Shapiro delivered an address worthy of note in its content and timing.

Earlier that morning, a pregnant woman from Tekoa, a settlement in the Judean Hills, was stabbed and seriously injured by a Palestinian teenager in the local grocery store. The previous evening, a mother of six (four biological children and two adopted ones), was stabbed to death in front of her 17-year-old daughter at their home in the settlement of Otniel.

Dafna Meir’s struggles with the Palestinian assailant, and her daughter’s screams for help, caused the terrorist to flee, but not before he managed to slaughter his victim. (At the time of Shapiro’s address, Israeli security forces were still hunting for the killer; a 16-year-old Palestinian was later apprehended and was being interrogated over the attack.)

BOOKS Comments turned off

A ban on Muslim migration will allow us to fight ISIS abroad instead of fighting ISIS and becoming ISIS at home. Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on January 19th, 2016

Will Banning Muslim Migration Ruin the Anti-ISIS Coalition?We don’t need to become ISIS to fight ISIS.

The most common attack on proposals to end Muslim migration to the United States is that this policy would somehow interfere with the coalition to fight ISIS.

Lindsey Graham asked, “How do you go to any of these countries and build a coalition when your policy is simply because you’re a Muslim you can’t come to America?” “This policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS,” Jeb Bush objected.

The White House agreed, “We have an over-60-country coalition fighting with a substantial number of Muslim-majority fighters who are absolutely essential to succeeding in that effort.”

But there are two things wrong with this argument.

First, no Muslim country or faction is fighting ISIS because they like us. They’re not doing us any favors. They’re protecting themselves from the Islamic State.

The insistence of ISIS that it is the supreme authority over all Muslims has even led it into battles with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No one fighting ISIS is doing it because of our immigration policy. Jeb Bush referenced the Kurds. The Kurds want their own homeland. Those who want to come to America don’t want to fight ISIS. Those who want to fight ISIS aren’t looking to move to Dearborn or Jersey City.

Second, Muslim countries in the anti-ISIS coalition have much harsher immigration policies for Christians than anything that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz have proposed for Muslims.

When Obama gave his speech, the first Muslim country he mentioned in the coalition was Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bans all religions except Islam. No churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Christmas parties are targeted with police raids. Converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Non-Muslims are entirely banned from some Saudi cities and the legal system discriminates against them.

Saudi Arabia also engages in blatant racial discrimination and denies basic civil rights to women. And yet there are no problems with having Saudi Arabia in the anti-ISIS coalition. Certainly the Saudis don’t worry that we’ll drop out of the coalition because they ban Christianity.