Elliott Abrams has an oped in today’s Wall Street Journal trying to defend Ariel Sharon’s legacy, and evidently further ruin the Bush administration’s. In his article, “Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements,” he attempts to show that there was a clear understanding between the US and Israel on continuing the “natural growth” of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Lara Friedman has posted a take down of Abrams on the Peace Now blog, including this great intro:
On May 23, 2005, the Washington Post ran a an incisive op-ed by former State Department negotiator and Middle East advisor Aaron Miller, entitled “Israel’s Lawyer,” in which Aaron argued “For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel’s attorney…” I was reminded of that article when I read today’s piece by Elliott Abrams in the Wall Street Journal, which should, I believe, have been entitled “The West Bank Settlers’ Lawyer.”
Before anyone accuses me of casting aspersions on Mr. Abrams’ honor or motivations, let me be clear: I have no doubt he has taken the case pro bono.
Zing! Friedman proceeds to take apart Abrams article bit by bit. In the end I think it might not really matter, because even if we take Abrams at his word (which is know is dangerous given his history) it doesn’t add up to a whole lot. I personally believe the Bush administration did promise Sharon he could expand the settlements. But even if he did, why can’t that policy be overturned now? Haven’t plenty of Bush’s other stupid mistakes been undone?
Abrams ends with, “For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government.” Actually, the reasons are perfectly clear. The Bush administration’s deal with Sharon would have made any kind of two-state solution impossible. Obama is trying to at least keep the door open, but he’s going to have to do a lot more than just freeze settlements.
Related posts:
- How the ‘peace process’ doesn’t work: Elliott Abrams talked to Israeli ambassador up to 6 times a day
- ‘Washington Post’ lets two men who have seen conditions on the West Bank publish a letter criticizing Elliott Abrams
- How Elliott Abrams ignored Hamas’s overtures
- Is Elliott Abrams capable of ‘enhancing the nation’s moral discourse’?
- Elliott Abrams, the early years
{ 62 comments }
I couldn't care less whether Bush said he would give to Israel something that wasn't his to give in the first place. You steal my TV, it's still my TV, even if your Dad tells you to go ahead and keep it. You're not going to put your feet up and enjoy it till the day you give it back, regardless of what your idiot Dad says.
lebensraum One entry found. Main Entry: le·bens·raum Listen to the pronunciation of lebensraum Pronunciation: \\ˈlā-bənz-ˌrau̇m, -bən(t)s-\\ Function: noun Usage: often capitalized Etymology: German, from Leben living, life + Raum space Date: 1905 1 : territory believed especially by Nazis to be necessary for national existence or economic self-sufficiency 2 : space required for life, growth, or activity
Maybe to put that a little less snarkily, the point is this: we act as if the US can bring its weight to bear, and just end this conflict however it likes. But it can't, because the US power in this situation is more limited than that. The US has the power to push through a solution that many people on both sides of the conflict, and in the international community will support – ie the two state solution on the 1967 borders. But we don't have the power to push through a solution like the Abrams one – ie let the Israelis colonize where they will – and make it stick; because nobody else on the planet accepts that as a legitimate resolution to the conflict. So the one hand, the US is uniquely powerful because it has the power to bring this conflict finally to a close; on the other hand, it only has the power to bring it to a close in one specific way. That's a conundrum that is difficult for some Americans to accept, because all this talk over the 15-20 years about being the world's only superpower made it sound like we could do whatever we wanted, and everyone else just would just have to accept it.
"I personally believe the Bush administration did promise Sharon he could expand the settlements." The Bush administration did not have the ability to exempt Israel from international law. The End.
Last time I heard we did not live in a dictatorship, especially one where the collective branches of government have to honor an oral or letter agreement by a former President. If Shrub made a secret deal, one against the official US foreign policy stance and that of the International legal community as well, why can't Obama cancel it? At least Obama made a public pronouncement, the first step towards proper procedure meant to keep intact our system of checks and balances.
The ability is there, just not the right. Hence the reason such promises are done under the table.
Israel's New Lawyer: Dennis Ross move to NSC announced http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/2...
It is remarkable to read about a secret, unwritten deal supposedly entered into by Bush, that Israel is now trying to enforce, to permit ongoing growth of illegal settlements. One of our core American value is: "we are a nation of laws, not men." The treaty power of the United States is set forth in the Constitution, and involves the executive power, with the advice and consent of the Senate. There are, I believe, various treaties lawfully entered into by the United States that commit our country to oppose establishment and expansion of settlements or colonies by one power occupying militarily land not its own under international law, both in general and with specific reference to Israel in the West Bank. An oral understanding with President Bush is in no way a legally or morally binding obligation of the United States, especially if it contradicts laws or treaties that are, with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. I could make a case that, for an executive of the United States to enter into an understanding with a foreign power to cause our government to take action favoring that foreign power, in ways that are contrary to our laws and treaties, in secret, constitutes illegal, possibly criminal conduct, possibly treason. Someone should get those who are complaining to testify to exactly what was said and committed.
And why it was important or considered desirable to make such commitments secretly, outside of ordinary lawful channels.
President Bush promised me Madagascar.
The only way to determine the amount of power America has over Israel is to try sanctionss on Israel…. just once.
So Bush can bind us for perpetuity? If true, then Rumsfeld's secret assurances to Saddam in 1984 should have made Saddam golden forever. Nice try, Elliot.
Shrub pushed the powers of the Executive branch of our government to the limits–witness his many "signing agreements" wherein he only accepted Congressional bills to the extent he approved. Witness his use of government lawyers to rubber stamp what he (Chaney) wanted regarding torture and spying on US citizens. A bigger issue, which I'd love to have someone here tell me, is what exactly is the authority and legal validity of the Memorandums of Understanding between USA and Israel? What kind of checks and balances hoops do those instruments have to go through? We have obligate ourselves to Israel in so many ways, one of them is that we guarantee Israel Oil at a cheap price, even if our own people pay $10.00 a gallon at the pump. Did you ever check out the very first global trade agreement we ever made, which was with Israel? Did you ever check out the agreement we made with Israel as to Copyright Protection? Anyone with a clue, please tune me in. Thanks
Yes, up until now there seems to be a lot bluster and Kabuki but not much else. Early days, but we have to remember we've been played before. Douglas Bloomfield re: AIPAC working with Netanyahu: “…What they don’t want out is that even though they publicly sounded like they were supporting the Oslo process, they were working all the time to undermine it,” said a well-informed source…" http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/ambassador-... …aswell as that interesting Martin Indyk interview. Eventhough Netanyahu's 'public' reception may have appeared different than the last time around — with Ackerman's, Berman's, and even Engel's outside of Congress pro-Israel affliations, it certainly makes me wonder what type of reception he was getting out of the public eye? http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/ambassador-...
what happened to phil's extremely wonderful essay on rage? was it too honest? it was here a couple of hours ago.
"If Shrub made a secret deal, one against the official US foreign policy stance…" This gets it almost exactly right except that to a degree Presidents can of course make new policy stances on their own. What reeks about this then is that not only was such a secret deal against official US policy as endorsed over the years by Congresses too and not just Presidents, but that it was effectively a lie to the entire world: That is we said to the world what our policy was, Bush did not openly say he was changing that, but he anyway made this agreement violating the hell out of that policy which of course is why he had to keep it secret. And it just goes to show the Alice-in-Wonderland nature of our dealings with Israel too that Abram's is being *open* about this lying. Not to mention also showing where his real loyalties lie given the damage the lie (justifiably) does to our global credibility. (If anyone was stupid enough to grant us any when it came to our supposed fairness in dealing with the Palestinians.) The funny thing is … the *Palestinians* knew that we were tolerating what Israel was doing. They could see their land being gobbled up. And they could see the PA still playing footsie with us despite same. And then Bush and Co. wonder how come the Palestinians were drawn to Hamas…. What a racket: Lie to people, and then when they naturally react condemn 'em for refusing to go along with your lie. Sheesh; someone please tell me how this doesn't just justifiably enrage arabs and muslims against us? Way to "keep us safe" from terror, Mr. Bush. Indeed the amazing thing given this kind of crap is that we haven't been the target of *more*.
Good comments above! Abrams is saying essentially that one man in the US can make law. That if the Prez says it to a foreign prez, then it has the effect of law. Hillary is direct. There were no documents. Nothing was memorialized. I'll bet one of those calls from Obama to Bush was to ask if there were any documents signed in secret. Abrams is forgetting that Bush was far Less inclined to accede to Israel in his last two years. Finally, I would say to Abrams: Prove It.
Considering that probably a majority of Americans call for the impeachment of GW Bush anyway, it seems like a joke to think that any of his deals with the devil (Sharon) should be considered signed in cement. Also, regarding Sharon's bold move to remove settlements in Gaza; they only did that because they were planning to bomb Gaza and everyone in it! So they moved out the settlers. Zionists are criminally insane and so was the Bush administration! No deals they made should stick! In fact, the Obama administration is charged with the daunting, if not impossible task of bringing back the USA from the abyss all those criminals got us in! The nerve of those nazis bring up any deal from GW Bush and trying to hold us to it.
and Bush didn't pardon Libby — always thought that was interesting. Cheney apparently pitched a fit.
Yes, I noticed too that it has disappeared. What happened?
Hit job on Jones and Mitchell with a rise up to the heavens with Ross. Source: anonymous 'Administration Official' "…senior directors for Arab-Israeli affairs and for Iran and the Gulf will now answer to Ross as well. With his proximity to the President, Ross will likely supercede special envoy George Mitchell as the most powerful voice in the Administration on Middle East peace talks. Ross will provide Obama strategic guidance for territories stretching from Morocco to India — supplanting a significant portion of the role traditionally played by the National Security Adviser…" conts. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,19...
Wishful thinking. Here's another explanation: “Of Ross's announced title — special assistant to the president and senior advisor on the central region — a Hill foreign policy aide said, "I give them credit for inventing an entirely new term in international affairs — 'the Central Region.' Interesting the phrase 'work with' as opposed to 'supervise.'" http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/2... The National Security Council announcement does not say that ”senior directors for Arab-Israeli affairs and for Iran and the Gulf will now answer to Ross as well.” The announcement says “work with.” ”General Jones is pleased to announce an addition to our already strong National Security Staff. The addition is in the important Central Region that encompasses the Middle East, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia. Gen. Jones is in the midst of a several day trip to this important region. Dennis Ross will become Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region with overall responsibility for the region. He will work with Don Camp, Senior Director for South Asia, Lt. Gen. Doug Lute, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Adviser and Coordinator for Afghanistan-Pakistan, Dan Shapiro, Senior Director for Near East and North Africa, and Puneet Talwar, Senior Director for the Gulf States, Iran and Iraq.“
Not wishful thinking on my part I assure you! Just having two takes on Ross's role is not enough. Waiting to see if others will chime in! But please get your head around why we should have two competing explanations.
phil, please re-post your beautiful article on rage. it was wonderful and healing.
Sand, In the meantime, the new special adviser to Hillary Clinton is Sidney Blumenthal, father of Max Blumenthal. Think Dad isn't going to be reading this site every day? This move of Ross to the White House is a brilliant move, I think. It came to me: it gIves Hillary fabulous cover. She implements policy; she says This is what the President wants without this cockroach undermining her, or calling the rolodex every time he gets wind of something. No loose cannon with a staff running around the State Dept dreaming up ways to undercut Obama, and in the WH, every phone call, every move is recorded by the Secret Service. If he undercuts Obama or attempts to give Israel a heads-up on national security decisions, he's toast on so many levels.
Someone got worried that it might inflame the goy PM
"There are, I believe, various treaties lawfully entered into by the United States that commit our country to oppose establishment and expansion of settlements or colonies by one power occupying militarily land not its own under international law" Yeah, well, Israel is a signatory to those exact same treaties.
The Lobby tries to get its way behind closed doors for a reason. Every public fight they have erodes their support among the American people as more people get tuned in. They don't WANT to have a knock-down drag-out fight with Pres. Obama over colonization or sanctions or anything else, if they can avoid it. The only outcome worse than defeat for them from such a conflict would be a defeated one-term Pres. Obama with politically nothing left to lose and a couple more years to unleash the full power of the executive branch on the Lobby. It is an extremely unlikely scenario I know, because no ones wants it go that far. This gives Pres. Obama substantial breathing room to apply persistent low-pressure to nudge the domestic and international political environments more to his advantage for later confrontation.
One of our core American value is: "we are a nation of laws, not men." The ridiculous judicial outcomes of the last string of Israeli espionage cases indicates that, while it is still a core value for many Americans, it is not reality, and that some men are more equal than others.
MRW. I have a different take: At this stage, I'm not quite sure if Blumenthal [uber Clinton loyalist] is being bought in to cover and protect Hillary personal political arse, or as you say to cover and protect the actual policies she is expected to espouse — on Obama's behalf? Regardless of her having an elbow accident just after meeting Lieberman, where I think she got creamed incidentally — she's been unusually and extremely quiet at this crucial time. Unless she's up to her eyeballs on morphine I was expecting at least one appearance — showing her support of the President. MRW — don't forget her arse is owned — personally, I have a feeling she's far more worried about pissing off the Jewish constituency that bought her and her husband into power than upsetting and going against Obama. I bet its been mighty 'stressful' for her over these past few months being the one to deliver the 'bad news' to her friends in the Jewish community. In her mind, if she thinks for one moment that Obama might have a chance of going down next election, like Bush I did — then I'm sure she's put a contingency plan in for herself. This woman is all about survival — her survival. Hence the reason why Blumenthal is coming on board. Just speculation mind you — I could be totally wrong as I haven't got a crystal ball. BTW: I think AIPAC and Ross saw the writing on the wall that NSC was where the centralization was heading, and they needed to be in with the action.
I call Kerguelen Island! I bet the fishing is pretty sweet.
Finally, I would say to Abrams: Prove It. I was kinda thinking it would be more appropriate to tell him to f-ck off. Who cares what a career traitor has to say?
LOL, I love it.
do you mean whip up anti-semitic fervor? i think the opposite. that this kind of honesty is what will decrease the tendency to hatred. it leads to connection . i expressed my gentile resentment of stonewalling on the part of jewish friends, it's painful, it makes me angry an disapointed, but it is not anti-semitism . i want to say it out loud so i can be understood , not feared. i want those who stonewall to know how it effects me. rage is inevitable when one side takes all the power. real dialogue is not about power. stonewalling is about power.
If you go the WSJ post of Elliot Abrams' op-ed and click comments . . . um, interestingly, nothing comes up. I love reading the Wall Street journal every day until I get to the neocon, hasbara, Zionist, Israel-first, American-tayxpayers-are-just-stupid-goyim-hosts-for-a-parasitic-Israel, tripe led by Bret Stephens and a whole gang of the usual neo-con idiots. The tide is turning against the MSM's hasbara-spewing JPPPI-AIPAC-Clean Break crew, and it's invigorating to see it.
My point is that the negative comments against Abrams caused the administrator to block access to the comment section. This is consistent with jeffrey Goldberg's new policy of "closing" his op-ed to comments. Same with the NY Times on any Israeli related hasbara. A turning point?
Add: NSC is where the action is? Unless things have changed? This from Laura Rozen's blog in Feb 09: ".."The single biggest factor in determining whether the NSC is important is the involvement of the president in national security policy," said David Rothkopf, author of a history of the powerful council, Running the World. "If you go back and look at national security advisors, the more important ones than the others are the ones in a real partnership with president who wanted to be involved. "For that reason, I think there's plenty of evidence already to suggest that this will be a very powerful NSC," Rothkopf continued. "Because Obama is engaged, and he does want to be involved. It seems to me that Obama is going to carry forward the long-term trend of having the center of gravity in national security policymaking increasingly be the White House." ames L. Jones and the committee to run the world http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/1...
The fact that Ross has gone to the NSC and Blumenthal has taken his place is NOT a positive move. Sid B. "Blumenthal also served as key organizer and supporter of the Third Way conferences, aimed at creating a movement for progressive governance throughout the world." Wike- In other words, governments that do what we, the West, wants them to. There is absolutely nothing new here. What did Hillary or Bill ever do for the Palestinians? They are power hungry. They have and will continue to do what ever it take to be a part of the power structure which means they will step and fetch for the Israelis firststers. Bibi yahoo's rhetoric is design to salve his public. He knows the only way to save Israel's being a Jewish state is to give something of a state to the Pals so that Israel can cleanse itself of them. Obama is just playing his role. He would have never make it through Chicago politics or to the white house without the Firststers having something on him. The Jewish machine simply wouldn't have let it happen. The reason I know this is because I wouldn't have if I were them.
What are you smoking?
RE: "Meet the 'settlers' lawyer' – Elliott Abrams" MY COMMENT: Elliott Abrams = evil incarnate
Hi Citizen: I think I can somewhat answer your question, but only after some background and only in a rather limited fashion because of the very great limits of what's clear in the field. In fact it's been said that there is no other field covered by the Constitution's apportionment of powers that is even half so vague as in the field of foreign affairs. To start with it's clear that the Framers intended the President to have the sole voice when it came to representing the U.S. abroad. Now that doesn't mean of course that he solely sets U.S. foreign policy, but in huge practice it's further been said that Presidents mainly have and do, and that Congress' main role has effectively been to act only as the brakes on that sometimes. And even then you can see how subordinate Congress has been generally to Presidents when it comes to foreign affairs when you consider how Presidents have gotten us/led us into wars without formal declarations of same from Congress first and etc., despite the Constitution itself saying that Congress must declare war for the U.S. to be in one. (Which doesn't however mean that a *formal* declaration of same from Congress is necessary; the S. Ct. has long held that not to be necessary, and that a funding decision on its part for instance is more than enough. I know, I know, I think is a mistake and has led to all kinds of trouble, but….) So anyway Congress' real power in practice (and in general) has been through its undoubted power of the purse, with even that being seldom really used to oppose a President's foreign decisions. But of course with Israel it has to be remembered that probably as with no other country or foreign affair ever Congress *has* been rather heavily and proactively involved, such as with foreign aid bills, grants, loans, loan guarantees, statements of support for Israel and etc. and so forth.
To continue (despite this damn comment software) In any event then with that background getting to these Memos of Understanding I think you'll find that most are really just agreements between U.S. Presidents and foreign governments, not made pursuant to any Congressional authorization but no doubt valid due them just being what are otherwise called "Executive Agreements" which have been found by the Supreme Court validly makeable, with the bounds of same however being very unclear. For instance I have no doubt the President could not make an agreement that violated Americans' fundamental constitutional rights such as due process. On the other hand what's amazing is how unclear it is as to what issues need a treaty (which Congress must approve also), and what issues don't and etc., etc. And I don't think you'll ever see the Supreme Court delineate that because it will just see that as a "political question" and leave it up to the Prez. and Congress to fight out. But if say you saw an Exec. Agreement that Congress did not like and voted to bar any U.S. funds from funding, I suspect you'd see that EA die, so again showing Congress' essential "braking" role and power. (Although I should note that "braking" power and "money" power isn't unlimited even theoretically. For instance, I very much doubt that Congress could force the President to have the U.S. vote in any particular way in the U.N. And given that the Constitution gives the President the power to *wage* war, I doubt it could use even its great power of the purse to force him to wage it this way or that if he or she didn't want to.) As to how binding an EA is, well I think that answer is they really aren't binding at all on us because they aren't treaties, and even a Prez. who signs one has the power to change his or her mind, much less another President. So I don't think we could even be sued under one by another country if the President didn't want that. So really the value of one to another country is that they rest on the idea that U.S. Presidents don't make them lightly, and don't break them lightly either, and while that sounds not all that weighty in practice I think it's been quite so. Presidents have treated them weightily. And that's why you see Clinton for instance denying this quasi-EA at issue ("quasi" because there doesn't seem to be anything in writing which would really make it into a full-fledged, no-doubt EA), even if it *isn't* in writing just because she wants to say that Obama is respectful of his office and his predecessors and isn't just ripping up past US obligations willy-nilly. Help any?
And, to conclude, one more thing you might want to think about: Of course during the Bush years we saw tons of people saying he was exceeding his powers, including his foreign affairs powers especially even though during wartime (which we definitely were in, with no formal declaration of war even being necessary it's been found by the S. Ct.) Presidents clearly have lots and lots of power. And while I agreed that Bush went overboard politically its another thing to say he violated the Constitution in terms of his powers. But of course that's what lots of folks like to say at the time and touted the idea he was acting as an "Imperial President" and boy shouldn't Congress really rule and etc., etc. (Even though when Congress *did* act it tended to be like Bush's poodle formally, although of course lots of congressmen love to *act* like they really didn't support Bush's policies, contrary to their votes.) My point with this I guess is something that we very well might be seeing soon and that is you have to be careful with this. Those same people who were all gung-ho for Congress to be calling more if not all the foreign affairs shots may well be singing an exact different tune when it comes to the Israel issue because if push comes to shove I suspect we will see Congress being *Israel's* poodle and Obama being the stand-up guy there and that's when things get interesting. And that's when people will suddenly start to say "oh gee, he's the *President* of *course* he should set our foreign policy" and blah blah blah. So one has to be careful to be consistent on the issue, that's all I'm saying. Hope this makes some sense and helps. I know it's general, but it's a remarkably uncertain and complex field that I *think* I've fairly and accurately outlined. If not just ask and I'll blunder forth again as best as I can.
It's pretty simple: Even if former President Bush privately promised something to Israeli politicians – which seems highly dubious – it's utterly and rightly irrelevant to President Obama's administration and all future US governments. It would even have been irrelevant to Bush's administration if he had changed his mind. "Pacta sunt servanda" does not extend to personal opinions of single polticians. It does extend to actual treaties between states, which Israel routinely breaks. And of course, *if* there had been a treaty to that effect, it would have been null and void from the start for contradicting preceding treaties, by which the US accepted international law. Then again, the underlying political Weltanschauung of US and Israel (not exclusively, of course) right wingers is simply not compatible with the above, since they barely understand the concept of "state" and "law", especially "international law". Such rational, clear-cut concepts are usually replaced by diffuse, emotionally charged ones like "nation" or "justice".
Laurie – The Jewish machine is not the only political machine in the US.
Good point, Laurie, but I think Obama's situation is unique. Remember how much the organized Jewish community had to sell Obama to the many Jews who thought he was a Muslim or enemy of Israel? Sarah Silverman, I believe, had a campaign to urge young Jews to convince their grandparents that Obama was OK. Another major factor was his race. Liberal Jews were giddy and star-struck over the possiblity of a black president, and Obama benefited from the least hostile scrutiny from the MSM that I have ever seen towards a presidential candidate in my lifetime. I think that the Zionist community let their guard down with Obama and underestimated him.
This is a very astute analysis. I think you may be right. Obama has proven much shrewder than I suspected. It's clear that he understands Jewish political dynamics very well. I hope he doesn't disappoint.
I have a secret verbal agreement with Obama to start building settlements on George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. As soon as my lobbyists get Congress to give me $3 billion in US taxpayer dollars, I'm gonna start building my settlements. Yee-haw!
Yeah, that was a phenomenal post. Pure honesty. Phil's a remarkable guy. Perhaps he can modify it, and re-post the gist of it.
I look at David Dinkin's experience as mayor of NYC and I can't help but wonder if the same scenario isn't planned for Obama. The Jewish vote was crucial in the election of David Dinkins. Liberal Jews backed him and then the economy crashed and he got the blame. The outlook for the U.S. economy isn't good.
The others pale in comparison.
Bush (or somebody with authority to represent him) did verbally convey that the US would not object to Israeli settlement construction. It was in all the papers. Why is it even posed as a secret? But, that is a non-binding policy interpretation. NOT in writing, and certainly not ratified in legislation or treaty.
It never is what it seems. My personal belief is that Obama is giving Ross a higher-profile role and making a lot of noise about it, to give him cover against Israel and AIPAC. It seems that Iran is becoming front and center hot-button in the Middle East — yet Dennis is being moved away from direct responsibility for Iran just when the crisis emerges. He seems to be taking over for Lute in Iraq, who is a holdover from the Bush administration. Here's an interesting excerpt from the Time article: "Ross is ascending at a key moment. . . Obama has also initiated a more complex relationship with Israel than his predecessors by openly confronting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a demand that Israel halt settlement activity." It's all about the settlements, baby.
Wow, MRW, excellent post. I agree that the MSM just recycles the propaganda spoonfed to them by the "unnamed sources."
Sorry if post shows twice, but the first one I put up isn't showing now. In theory Congress has the power of the purse, but in practice the Federal Reserve does. After all the congress must go to the Fed to fund its budget and to print its money.. What are U.S. notes, and how do they differ from Federal Reserve notes? U.S. notes, the first national currency, began circulating during the civil war; they were authorized by the Legal Tender Act of 1862. The Department of the Treasury issued these notes directly. Issuance was subject to limitations; the Congress established a statutory limitation of $300 million on the amount of U.S. notes outstanding and in circulation. Although this amount was significant in Civil War days, it is a very small fraction of the total currency now in circulation in the United States. U.S. notes serve no function that is not already served by Federal Reserve notes. As a result, the Treasury Department stopped issuing U.S. notes, and none have been placed into circulation since January 21, 1971. Those that remain in circulation are obligations of the U.S. government. [Note: NOT the Federal Reserve] The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), these notes move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. government. Both U.S. notes and Federal Reserve notes are part of our national currency and are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faq...
Thanks so much for your well-written and lengthy response, Sin Nombre. Particularly your refreshing my mind about the Supreme Court's use of the "political question" doctrine to toss the ball back to the other two branches of governent, and the reminder that congressional funding amounts to constitutionally valid congressional decision respecting declaration of war. All the vagaries in the other items you mention are certainly so. Thanks, again, especially since you had to deal with the Typepad comment function these days.
Thanks, Laurie for that connection. Unbacked political notes, further weakened by the fractional reserve system, ridiculous leveraging of capital by computer digits, is a true horror. Well, at least Ron Paul's bill now in Congress is trying to obtain some Fed Reserve transparency, hence accountability. The Fed's never been audited since it was created in 1913. China and some other Asian nations are meeting now to try to get off the dollar standard without harming the value of the giant debt already owed to them by Uncle Sam. The Creature From Jeykll Island is an informative book on The Fed.
Maybe Obama pulled a JFK with the assignments of Emanuel and now Ross? One of JFK's first appointments was Myer Feldman as his point man for Jewish and Israeli affairs–an important post, considering at the time The Lobby was suspicious of JFK's commitment to Israel. Key political debts have to be paid. McGeorge Bundy did his best to circumvent Feldman who spoke exactly like the Israeli ambassador. JFK needed Jewish money and key votes in the 1960 Election. He met with Abraham Feinberg, a major NY fund raiser, and other Jewish monebags at Feinberg's house. They told JFK they'd give him half a million–all he had to do was give them control over Middle East policy. Seymour Hersh said after the night meeting JFK told Charles Bartlett he was outraged as an American citizen to have a Zionist group crudely make such a demand. JFK said if he ever got to be Prez he'd do something about Jewish money dictating American elections and foreign policy. Of course he got shot. Gee, think of what Truman went through with the Zionists to get elected; you can read his diary at the Truman Archive online. And, check out the USS Liberty incident and Johnson.
They did that with JFK too; of course look where he ended up.
I mean my reply to go to David F. Laurie, you comment is also well taken.
Or even in the form of an official policy memo apparently.
My pleasure. It's an interesting field for sure and one real interesting thing to watch I think is that I read somewhere the AIPAC was gearing up to get Congress to pass a resolution (probably in an attempted "binding" form) approving of Israel's demand that the Palestinians at least (if not all arab countries) do indeed recognize Israel as "the jewish state." Was gone after I spotted that so didn't see the particulars and don't know where it is (it couldn't have passed already, could it?), but it raises an interest question about whether Obama need heed it. For my part I don't think he does, although the two branches usually try to finagle their differences away on things like this. But it might be a taste if not the whole magilla of a showdown between AIPAC and Obama if it ever comes to that.
Comments on this entry are closed.