NBC’s Richard Engel: Arab Nations No Longer Trust The Obama Administration

Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries are conducting military actions against Iranian interests without telling the United States because they no longer trust us with keeping the intelligence secret from Iran.

How does it feel to be part of the axis of evil, America? Because under Obama, we are no longer considered one of the good guys on the world stage. Our allies in the war on terror no longer trust us. And why should they when the president’s new BFF is the belligerent and apocalyptic Islamic Republic of Iran?

The Washington Free Beacon reported:

NBC’s Richard Engel reported Friday that U.S. officials were stunned they were not given any notice before Saudi Arabia launched attacks against Houthi rebels. According to Engel, military leaders were finding out about the developments on the Yemen border in real time.

Engel said officials from both the military and members of Congress believe they were not given advanced warning because the Arab nations do not trust the Obama administration after they befriended Iran.

“Saudi Arabia and other countries simply don’t trust the United States any more, don’t trust this administration, think the administration is working to befriend Iran to try to make a deal in Switzerland, and therefore didn’t feel the intelligence frankly would be secure. And I think that’s a situation that is quite troubling for U.S. foreign policy,” Engel said.

See Also:

Gateway Pundit: Former Iraq Ambassador: Obama’s Foreign Policy Is in “G*ddam Free Fall”

Obama Admin Explanation For Why Iran and Hezbollah Left off Terror List Doesn’t Pass Laugh Test

For some nefarious reason, this year’s Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communities does not include Iran or Hezbollah. The official excuse the Obama Regime is using to explain why Iran and Hezbollah were left off the U.S. terror threat list doesn’t pass the smell test or even the laugh test. National Intelligence Director James Clapper has cited “a change in formatting” as the reason for this removal – evidently too ashamed to admit the awful truth – that Obama had agreed to do it as a concession in his nuke talks with Iran. “It’s a flat lie,” John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, last week. “The format of this years report is exactly the same as last year’s report,” Bolton explained. “Do they think we’re that stupid? Greta asked incredulously. “Yes,” Bolton answered flatly. “The people who would say this is a format change are weasels,” Bolton said. Bolton suspects that Iranian negotiators told American negotiators to “go easy on us on this terrorism stuff.”

SEE ALSO: Michael Goodwin, The New York Post: Israel: Beware of Obama: These are the best opening paragraphs I’ve read in a long time:

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet. He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast. Now he’s coming for Israel. Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Read the rest at the link. Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Obama “Embarrassed” For Republicans Because They Wrote to Ayatollah (His Secret Pen Pal)

I guess we’re supposed to all be too stupid to notice the hypocrisy here.

“I’m embarrassed for them,” said the president in an interview with Vice News.

“For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah,” Obama continued, “who they claim is our mortal enemy — and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement. It is close to unprecedented.”

Let’s unpack Captain Bullshit’s bullshit, shall we?

• “For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah”…

Who happens to be Obama’s secret pen-pal. Obama has written to Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at least four times since taking office in 2009.

• “who they claim is our mortal enemy”…

Note he says THEY (the GOP) claim the Supreme Leader of Iran, (who says things like, “the Islamic peoples all over the world chant ‘Death to America!’ and  “this battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it”) is our mortal enemy. Not he himself. No Obama seems to have found “common cause” with this person the unsophisticated troglodytes in the GOP think is a mortal enemy.

• “and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement”…

No. That was not their argument at all – basic or otherwise. That is a flat out lie. The point of their short, blunt letter was to explain to Khamenei (who they –  but presumably not Obama –  consider a mortal enemy) that any agreement he makes with the president will not be binding, and could be overturned by a future congress.

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
 
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
 
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.  For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
 
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
 
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Nowhere in that letter do the Senators suggest that Obama can’t be trusted to follow through with an agreement.

Every single word of Obama’s answer was complete, unadulterated bullshit. It wasn’t – as Obama’s fanbois in the media would have it – “slick” – it wasn’t “too clever by half.” It wasn’t a brilliantly deceptive Jedi mind-trick or part of an awesome 3-steps-ahead chess move. It was transparently ridiculous nonsense.

But I’m not embarrassed for Obama. We expect him to be a lying hypocrite. We expect him to be a disdainful, treacherous cretin. It is his nature.

I’m embarrassed for his media toadies who allow him – time and time again – to get away with it.

 

 

 

 

Obama Admin May Bypass Congress and Take Iran Deal To United Nations (Video)

Republicans are reacting with alarm to reports that the Obama Regime is contemplating bypassing congress on the Iranian Nuke deal, instead taking it to the U.N. Security Council for a vote.

In a letter, Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said the idea of letting the U.N. consider such an agreement, while threatening to veto legislation that would allow Congress a say on it, is a “direct affront” to the American people.

Via US News and World Report:

In exchange for signing onto a deal aimed at keeping it from developing nuclear weapons, Iran seeks relief from sanctions, including those imposed by the U.S. executive branch, the United Nations and Congress.

 Corker has introduced legislation requiring any final agreement with Iran to be submitted to Congress for review before any sanctions imposed by Congress can be eased.

Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen was invited on the Kelly File Thursday night to offer his insights on this latest Obama overreach.

“It’s an outrage,” Thiessen said. “What the president is basically saying is, ‘I care more about the approval of the United Nations than I care of the approval of the elected representatives of the American people. He’s not simply not going to congress. He’s going to the United Nations and seeking the approval of dictatorships like Russia and China while threatening to veto legislation that would give congress an up or down vote on this deal.”

Asked how the UN deal would work, Thiessen said, “so what he’s trying to do is he has this non-binding agreement with Iran, and he’s going to take it to the UN Security Council and the UN Security Council will give its blessing to this deal, and give it the force of international law which means that under international law, no countries can impose sanctions on Iran unless they’re violation the deal. That’s what he thinks he’s doing. The problem with that is – under US law, the US Constitution trumps international law. The US Constitution trumps the UN charter.”

The bottom line, however, is even though the agreement would not be binding, it would make it more difficult for the next president to undo because he’ll have to deal with the international community if he decides to reverse it.

Iranian Hardliner Finds Common Cause With Obama – Blasts Republicans, Insults Netanyahu

The Iranian hardliner being “the Supreme Leader” himself –  the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei, like Obama and Kerry, denounced the letter by US Republican senators, which threatens to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran. Khamenei also called allegations of Iranian involvement with terrorism “risible” and called the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “Zionist clown.”

Via the Jerusalem Post:

Mehr quoted Khamenei as saying: “Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing.”

“Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions.”

The negotiations, which resume in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week, are at a critical juncture as the sides try to meet an end of March target for an interim deal, with a final deal in June.

Khamenei added that US accusations of Iranian involvement in terrorism were risible. He also criticized a speech to Congress by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this month that warned the United States it was negotiating a bad deal with Iran that could spark a nuclear nightmare.

“When this Zionist clown spoke at Congress, members of the US government made remarks to deny any role in this event,” a message on Khamenei’s Twitter account read following his meeting with the clerics.

“Zionist clown”, huh? Harsh. But then – a senior Obama official reportedly called Netanyahu, “chickenshit” a few months ago, which may actually be worse.

But yeah – those treasonous Republicans sure have a lot more in common with the Iranian hardliners because they want to prevent them from getting nukes – than our Dear Leader who seems to have the same goals and the same enemies as the Iranian Dear Leader.

Common cause.

Democrats Calling 47 GOP Senators Traitors is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

ayers-wright_obama

Democrats are in high dudgeon over an open letter 47 United States Senators sent to the Iranian regime on Monday which warned that any deal brokered by the president could be revoked by Congress.

Soon after the letter was made public, an incensed Obama suggested that the senators were in league with mad mullahs of Tehran:

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition.”

Here is what the letter stated, and you tell me if they are making common cause with our enemies:

“The next president,” the letter stated, “could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

It would seem the Republicans in Congress are in agreement with the Prime Minister of Israel and the leaders of the Arab world who fear that the Obama administration is brokering a terrible deal with the mad mullahs – a deal of appeasement and capitulation. A deal that allows Iran to go nuclear.

This is not what any sane person would call “making common cause with hard-liners.”

But taking their cue from the man at the top, Vice President Joe Biden,  WH Spox Josh Earnest, The New York Daily News, former WH speechwriter Jon Lovett, and others have hysterically accused the 47 republican senators of high treason. The hashtag #47Traitors is currently trending on Twitter.

This is a disgusting twisting of the facts but all part of a well coordinated campaign – as laid out by Ace of Spades on Twitter:

There is someone who appears to be making “common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” And it’s not the Republicans.

It is the president himself who has sent secret love letters to the ayatollahs.

Obama has made it manifestly clear that he doesn’t like our longtime ally, Israel –  as Ralph Peters so succinctly put it - “if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Obama would not shed a single tear.”   It is feared that Obama administration has already accepted that Iran will get the bomb and create a new hegemony in the Middle East – and is just hoping that the first blast happens on someone else’s watch.

But in Obama’s America where black is white, up is down, right is wrong – it is those who stand up for America and the free world – who are the “traitors.”

Hyperventilating Democrats are trying to claim that the GOP letter may have violated the Logan Act – which “has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years” according to Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro. If Republicans violated the Logan Act, so did the Democrats – who have a disgusting history of colluding against Republican presidents with our nation’s enemies:

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

And let’s not forget post-presidential meddlings of Jimmy Carter:

In November 1990, two months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He urged the countries to drop their support for Bush’s proposed military solution.
Right up to Bush’s Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action.
During the Clinton administration, Carter had similar difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he was not president. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country’s nuclear program. Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International without telling the administration. His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration’s efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a “treasonous prick” for his behavior.

These Democrats did not contact foreign leaders in an effort to undermine an enemy’s nefarious goals (like the Republicans did.) They met with foreign enemies to undermine the Republican president and by extension – our national interests.

If Obama’s nuke deal was in the nation’s best interest, he would abide by the Constitution of the United States which clearly states in Section 2: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”  But Obama refuses to do that. Instead, he goes over their heads, while disturbing details about the deal are leaked out.

MORE:

Speaking of “making common cause with hardliners”

Via Gateway Pundit:FLASHBACK: Obama Sent Ambassador to Tehran to Assure Mullahs He Was Friend of Regime (Video)

Michael Ledeen wrote about Obama’s secret meetings with Tehran on August 29, 2014.

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was AmbassadorWilliam G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (Ret) weighed in on Hannity, last night, bringing up “the Naval hero of Chappaquiddick’s outreach to the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s anti-Communist policies.

SEE ALSO: 

Roots HQ: The Left’s Unprecedented and Shocking Outrage Machine

 

 

Lt. Col Ralph Peters: Obama and Dems Like ‘Bitchy High School Girls’, Obama’s Politics ‘Onanistic’

An incensed Lt Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.) verbally pummeled Obama and the Democrats mercilessly yesterday in a couple of appearances on Fox News. Unable to hide his disgust and contempt for their reaction to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, Tuesday morning, he likened them to “bitchy high school girls” in an appearance on America’s Newsroom.

As captured by the Washington Free Beacon:

Later in the day, he was on Fox Business with Stuart Varney, repeating an assertion he has made in recent days that the Regime has already accepted that Iran will get the bomb and create a new hegemony in the Middle East. They are just hoping that the first blast happens on someone else’s watch.

“This is a president who just doesn’t like Israel,” Peters explained.

Varney challenged Peters on that point, saying, “you said it right out loud. Obama will sacrifice Israel. That’s a remarkable thing to say!”

But Peters exclaimed, “no it is not! It’s not. Stuart, it’s NOT remarkable!” 

He added, “I’m tired of everyone in Washington pussy-footing around every issue.” He argued that people are too worried about their next promotion etc.

“I believe in my heart and soul — if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, Obama would not shed a single tear. He regards Israel as an obstacle – not an ally.”

He later compared Obama’s politics to Onanism.

“We’ve got a president who’s obsessed with himself. I mean this is the most politically onanistic president imaginable and we live in very, very dangerous times.” (For those of you in Rio Linda, Peters just called Obama’s politics masturbatory – a very apt description IMO.)

“And yesterday we saw a leader,” Peters continued. “and immediately after that leader spoke (Benjamin Netanyahu) we have President Obama just go into a – a – a – hissy-fit snit. Now compare the two men. My God, where is our Netanyahu?”

SEE ALSO:

Via The Times of Israel, a member of the Iranian Regime uses many of the same propaganda points as the Obama Regime in an interview with NBC.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif acknowledged that his country seeks the annihilation of the “Netanyahu regime” but denied that it seeks to wipe out Israel.

In an NBC interview on Wednesday, Zarif finessed a series of questions raised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech to Congress Tuesday, including over Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s tweet last year urging the annihilation of Israel, and about his own laying of a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh, the arch-Hezbollah terrorist responsible for the killings of hundreds of Americans.

Zarif said Netanyahu had been fanning “hysteria” since 1992 with the claim that Iran was two years from the bomb. “Once this fear mongering is out, then we can have a deal,” he said. Zarif also denied stalling the IAEA’s efforts to probe alleged nuclear weapons work. He spent much of the extensive interview castigating Israel for a series of alleged vicious crimes, while insisting on Iran’s tolerant and peaceful nature.

It was Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) who said in January that the talking points coming out of the Obama administration sounds like the propaganda coming out of Tehran.

It becomes increasingly difficult to tell them apart.