N KOREA & CHINA'S BRUTAL COMMUNISM CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED

NORTH KOREA & CHINA'S BRUTAL COMMUNISM CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED:

CHINA SUPPORTS NORTH KOREA'S COLD, BLOOD-THIRSTY REGIME.

USA LEADERS & US MILITARY MUST ENGAGE NOT IGNORE.


Sources: FoxNews, Youtube


***** North Korea is a threat to the US and so is China


President Trump on Friday declared that the “era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed,” thankfully turning the page on the Obama Administration's disastrous policies towards Pyongyang.

But America’s woes in Asia don’t stop with North Korea. In fact, the challenge Washington faces in that vital part of the world are much bigger. The good news is that the Trump Administration does have a narrow window to do something about it—before it's too late.

Now is the time for Washington to end the era of “strategic patience” with another rogue regime, one that is not only aiding North Korea’s military rise but is also on a crash course to dominate the Asia-Pacific.

That country is none other than the People’s Republic of China.

To be fair, the challenge China has posed to U.S. national security always seems to be get placed on the backburner, to be dealt with another day—something both Democrat and Republican administrations are guilty of.

The reasons are obvious. Years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, a great recession like no other, a Syrian civil war that seems never ending, tensions with Russia and now an epic struggle to ensure ISIS is simply no more have all ensured Beijing gets a pass for its actions -- time and time again.

President Trump on Friday declared that the “era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed,” thankfully turning the page on the Obama Administration's disastrous policies towards Pyongyang.

But America’s woes in Asia don’t stop with North Korea. In fact, the challenge Washington faces in that vital part of the world are much bigger. The good news is that the Trump Administration does have a narrow window to do something about it—before it's too late.

Now is the time for Washington to end the era of “strategic patience” with another rogue regime, one that is not only aiding North Korea’s military rise but is also on a crash course to dominate the Asia-Pacific.

That country is none other than the People’s Republic of China.

To be fair, the challenge China has posed to U.S. national security always seems to be get placed on the backburner, to be dealt with another day—something both Democrat and Republican administrations are guilty of.

The reasons are obvious. Years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, a great recession like no other, a Syrian civil war that seems never ending, tensions with Russia and now an epic struggle to ensure ISIS is simply no more have all ensured Beijing gets a pass for its actions -- time and time again.

Continue Reading Below


As Washington cast its focus everywhere else, China has decided to shed the notion of a so-called “peaceful rise," and instead pursue a dangerous course of action that is only leading to rising tensions with America, and if successful, will turn Asia into Beijing’s own private sphere of influence.

How China has worked to achieve its goals is clear, and in fact, is very much out in the open.

First, Beijing has done all it can to create an arc of instability, from the East China Sea all the way to the very ends of the South China Sea to advance its agenda. China prods and pushes its claims of “indisputable sovereignty” in all directions along this track, using civilian ships like fishing vessels, a dangerous maritime militia, and coast guard vessels that are many times nothing more than redesigned Chinese naval vessels, to ensure its mastery of the seas around them. Its goal is to turn such vital waterways into extensions of its territory, or what it calls “blue national soil."

Indeed, Beijing’s actions in the hotly disputed South China Sea deserve special attention. The beating heart of Asia’s economic miracle, China has literally drawn borders around this critical part of the global ocean commons. Called the nine-dash-line, China has done what no other nation has dared to do in centuries: place outlandish claims over vast waterways, that if enforced, would destroy the notion that oceans and seas can be claimed by no one. Beijing has even gone so far as to build island military bases out of small rocks and reefs in the area, tipping the strategic balance in its favor.

Next, to ensure the region takes China’s claims seriously, Beijing’s military might has advanced by leaps and bounds. Experts inside the Pentagon have privately told me that they fear America may now lack the ability to protect its interests and allies against China if conflict did break out—unless Washington was willing to accept casualties not seen since the Vietnam War, or worse.

Beijing’s strategy to dominate Washington in a conflict is also quite clear. Knowing that it still can’t match America ship for ship or plane for plane, Beijing has developed countless classes of deadly missiles. In the event of a conflict over Taiwan, the South or East China Seas or in Korea, China would shower U.S. bases, warships or allies with potentially thousands of missiles. And worst of all, thanks to treaty commitments agreed to with the now defunct Soviet Union, Washington is unable to legally build land-based missiles in the ranges needed to respond in kind.

But for Beijing this is simply not enough. China has even decided that it must begin to match America in as many possible areas of traditional military might as possible. Through cyber espionage, it has stolen classified data involving some of America’s most advanced military platforms. Such theft has included data on the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters, the THAAD missile defense system and many others. Take a look at China’s latest stealth fighter, the J-20. See a resemblance to America’s stealth weapons? The reason is obvious.

For Washington and its allies, the accumulation of Chinese economic, military and diplomatic muscle means the international community can no longer ignore this threat.

Considering all of this, now is the time for America to push back against Chinese acts of aggression—and not through failed foreign policy slogans like a “pivot” or “rebalance”—but through actual deeds.

The Trump administration must develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that Beijing does not dominate the Asia-Pacific, bully our allies or partners in region, or is able to defeat Washington in a military conflict.

Let there be no doubt, the growing threat of a nuclear North Korea compounded with the rise of China and its aggressive acts to ensure it dominates Asia are the two biggest foreign policy challenge America faces today. There can be only one response: when it comes to Trump’s foreign policy strategy, “America First” must mean Asia is the top priority above all else.

It's well past time that Washington make ‘Asia First’ a slogan it will put steal behind. There simply is no other choice.

NETANYAHU PLEASED WITH TRUMP'S DECISION TO DITCH PALESTINIAN STATE DEAL

NETANYAHU PLEASED WITH TRUMP'S DECISION TO DITCH PALESTINIAN STATE DEAL:

ISRAEL & AMERICA ARE FRIENDS ONCE AGAIN.


Sources: ABC News, NY Times, YouTube


******* Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian State


President Trump jettisoned two decades of diplomatic orthodoxy on Wednesday by declaring that the United States would no longer insist on the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

Hosting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for the first time since becoming president, Mr. Trump promised a concerted effort to bring the two sides together, suggesting a regional effort involving an array of Arab nations. But he said that he was flexible about how an agreement would look and that he would not be bound by past assumptions.

“I’m looking at two-state and one-state” formulations, Mr. Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.”

At the same time, Mr. Trump urged Mr. Netanyahu to temporarily stop new housing construction in the West Bank while he pursues a deal, echoing a position past presidents have taken. “I’d like to see you hold back on settlements for a little bit,” he told Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Trump’s position on a two-state solution discarded a policy that has underpinned America’s role in Middle East peacemaking since the Clinton administration and raised a host of thorny questions.

Palestinians are highly unlikely to accept anything short of a sovereign state, and a single Israeli state encompassing the Palestinians would either leave them as second-class citizens or would no longer be majority Jewish, given the growth rate of the Arab population.

Still, long before Mr. Trump’s ascension, momentum for side-by-side states had faded not just in Washington but also in the Middle East, where many Israelis and Palestinians have given up hope or changed their minds about the concept. The leaders of both sides face domestic difficulties and seem unenthusiastic about the compromises that might be required to get to a mutually agreeable resolution.

The trick is that no one has offered a plausible alternative that would satisfy both camps, leaving the conflict in a state of suspended animation. Mr. Netanyahu is under pressure from his right-leaning coalition to abandon the two-state solution and even annex parts of the West Bank. And the Palestinian Authority faces pressure from Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza and is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

Mr. Trump did not address these dynamics, instead emphasizing his confidence that he could produce a breakthrough. “I think we’re going to make a deal,” he said, describing that as personally important to him. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand.”

He emphasized that Israel would have to be flexible in any future talks. “As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises,” Mr. Trump said.

Turning to Mr. Netanyahu, he asked, “You know that, right?”

Mr. Netanyahu responded with a smile. “Both sides,” he said, emphasizing the first word.

Nonetheless, Mr. Netanyahu, who nominally supports a two-state solution, quickly embraced Mr. Trump’s declaration, saying he preferred to deal with the “substance” of a deal rather than “labels.”

He noted that the concept of a two-state solution meant different things to different people. And he repeated his two prerequisites: that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that Israel maintain security control over the entire West Bank. He said the obstacle to peace was Palestinian hatred, demonstrated by the building of statues to those who carry out terrorist attacks and the payment of salaries to their families. “This is the source of the conflict,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s dismissal of the two-state solution seemed reminiscent of his remark during the transition that the United States should not be bound by the decades-old “one China” policy that recognizes a single Chinese government in Beijing and withholds diplomatic ties from Taiwan. That statement infuriated the Chinese leadership, and Mr. Trump eventually circled back to endorse the policy.

If Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, several analysts said, he may inevitably find his way back to the two-state solution.

“If you do a systematic analysis of the situation, there is no other option,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former United States ambassador to Israel and Egypt. “There are Israelis who believe they could get away with giving the Palestinians minimal political rights, but they are fooling themselves. Unless the Palestinians do a 180, it is just inconceivable.”

Palestinian leaders lamented Mr. Trump’s stance, seeing it as an abandonment by the United States, which has been the main patron of the Palestinian Authority. But Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Palestinians could draw comfort from Mr. Trump’s eagerness for a new peace push and his warning to Israel on settlements.

Palestinians are highly unlikely to accept anything short of a sovereign state, and a single Israeli state encompassing the Palestinians would either leave them as second-class citizens or would no longer be majority Jewish, given the growth rate of the Arab population.

Still, long before Mr. Trump’s ascension, momentum for side-by-side states had faded not just in Washington but also in the Middle East, where many Israelis and Palestinians have given up hope or changed their minds about the concept. The leaders of both sides face domestic difficulties and seem unenthusiastic about the compromises that might be required to get to a mutually agreeable resolution.

The trick is that no one has offered a plausible alternative that would satisfy both camps, leaving the conflict in a state of suspended animation. Mr. Netanyahu is under pressure from his right-leaning coalition to abandon the two-state solution and even annex parts of the West Bank. And the Palestinian Authority faces pressure from Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza and is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

Mr. Trump did not address these dynamics, instead emphasizing his confidence that he could produce a breakthrough. “I think we’re going to make a deal,” he said, describing that as personally important to him. “It might be a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand.”

He emphasized that Israel would have to be flexible in any future talks. “As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises,” Mr. Trump said.

Turning to Mr. Netanyahu, he asked, “You know that, right?”

Mr. Netanyahu responded with a smile. “Both sides,” he said, emphasizing the first word.

Nonetheless, Mr. Netanyahu, who nominally supports a two-state solution, quickly embraced Mr. Trump’s declaration, saying he preferred to deal with the “substance” of a deal rather than “labels.”

He noted that the concept of a two-state solution meant different things to different people. And he repeated his two prerequisites: that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that Israel maintain security control over the entire West Bank. He said the obstacle to peace was Palestinian hatred, demonstrated by the building of statues to those who carry out terrorist attacks and the payment of salaries to their families. “This is the source of the conflict,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s dismissal of the two-state solution seemed reminiscent of his remark during the transition that the United States should not be bound by the decades-old “one China” policy that recognizes a single Chinese government in Beijing and withholds diplomatic ties from Taiwan. That statement infuriated the Chinese leadership, and Mr. Trump eventually circled back to endorse the policy.

If Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, several analysts said, he may inevitably find his way back to the two-state solution.

“If you do a systematic analysis of the situation, there is no other option,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former United States ambassador to Israel and Egypt. “There are Israelis who believe they could get away with giving the Palestinians minimal political rights, but they are fooling themselves. Unless the Palestinians do a 180, it is just inconceivable.”

Palestinian leaders lamented Mr. Trump’s stance, seeing it as an abandonment by the United States, which has been the main patron of the Palestinian Authority. But Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Palestinians could draw comfort from Mr. Trump’s eagerness for a new peace push and his warning to Israel on settlements.

“They will see an opening in, how do you translate the president’s desire for peace into something concrete?” Mr. Omari said.

Mr. Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and senior adviser, have been exploring an approachcalled the “outside-in” strategy, which involves enlisting Arab nations that have already found common cause with Israel against Iran, their mutual enemy, to help broker a settlement with the Palestinians.

Until now, Mr. Trump’s team has largely avoided conversations with Palestinian leaders. But Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, met with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, in Ramallah in the West Bank on Tuesday, according to news reports.

The idea of an independent Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza became the central theme of Middle East peacemaking in the 1990s after the Oslo Accords were signed. Bill Clinton was the first president to endorse a two-state solution, saying in a speech in January 2001, just two weeks before leaving office, that the conflict would never be settled without “a sovereign, viable Palestinian state.”

His successor, George W. Bush, picked that up later that year, becoming the first president to make it official American policy. Barack Obama considered a two-state solution the unquestionable bedrock of Washington’s approach. But those presidents never got to the point of an agreement between the two parties, and Mr. Trump picked as his ambassador to Israel a lawyer, David M. Friedman, who opposes the two-state solution.

Mr. Netanyahu looked forward to Mr. Trump’s inauguration as the first time in his four terms as prime minister that he would have a Republican president as a partner. After years of tension with Mr. Obama, who pressed Israel for more concessions for peace, Mr. Netanyahu anticipated vigorous support from the new president.

But Mr. Trump’s focus on the Palestinian conflict and his push for a pause in settlements distracted from the topic Mr. Netanyahu preferred to address, the threat from Iran. At the news conference, Mr. Trump again called Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran “one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen,” but said nothing about abandoning it or even renegotiating it. Instead, he simply vowed to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power. “I will do more to prevent Iran from ever developing — I mean ever — a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Nor did he repeat his campaign vow to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, saying only, “I’d love to see that happen” and, “We’ll see what happens.”

But he made a show of warmly welcoming Mr. Netanyahu, even inviting the prime minister’s wife, Sara, to stand during the news conference. The Israeli first lady was then treated to a museum tour by Mr. Trump’s wife, Melania.

Still, the president was pressed by an Israeli reporter about a rise in anti-Semitic attacks across the country since his election. The reporter asked what he would say to those “who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”

In a meandering response, Mr. Trump cited his victory in the Electoral College, then promised “to do everything within our power to stop long-simmering racism.” He pointed to Mr. Kushner, who is Jewish, and his daughter Ivanka, who converted when she married Mr. Kushner, to dispel suggestions of anti-Semitism.

“As far as Jewish people, so many friends — a daughter who happens to be here right now, a son-in-law and three beautiful grandchildren,” he said, vowing to promote comity. “You’re going to see a lot of love.”

ARIEL SHARON'S 60-Minutes Interview: Feb 26, 1928 - Jan 11, 2014 (R.I.P.)

#SHARON

ARIEL SHARON; Born: Ariel Scheinermann, February 26, 1928, in Kfar Malal just outside of TEL AVIV.

Died: January 11, 2012, at a Hospital near TEL AVIV.

Former ISRAELI Prime Minister ARIEL SHARON is dead at the age of 85.

SHARON a Tel Aviv native, survived the last 8 years of his life in a Coma.

Prime Minister SHARON was a WAR Hero, who supported expanding ISRAEL'S borders and helping JEWISH Settlers.

His death was met with both Tears & Cheers from around the world.

In 2002 ARIEL SHARON was interviewed by 60-Minutes Journalist LESLIE STAHL.

During this interview SHARON stated that he felt NO HATRED toward anyone, including former Palestinian leader YASSER ARAFAT, but loved ISRAEL with all his heart.

SHARON also expressed deep regret for NOT having Killed YASSER ARAFAT when he had the chance to do so.

Last Saturday Pres OBAMA along with other World Leaders, publicly offered his Condolences to SHARON'S Family & to the people of ISRAEL.

R.I.P.






ARTICLE: "Ariel Sharon, Former Prime Minister Of Israel, Dies At 85"


Ariel Sharon's life was one of dramatic highs and lows. As a soldier, he was both a war hero and a national disgrace. As a politician, he was a brazen leader who fought for Israel’s security, but became despised for withdrawing unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and offering Palestinians a state of their own.

His son, Gilad Sharon, announced his death Saturday, saying "he went when he decided to go."

Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement that he will lead the U.S. delegation to Israel for Sharon's funeral, which was scheduled for Monday near his ranch in the Negev Desert.

In a statement released by the White House, President Obama called Sharon "a leader who dedicated his life to the state of Israel."

"We reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel's security and our appreciation for the enduring friendship between our two countries and our two peoples," Mr. Obama said. "We continue to strive for lasting peace and security for the people of Israel, including through our commitment to the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security."

The man Israel knew as "Arik" began serving as the nation's prime minister in March 2001. A highly controversial figure as both a longtime political and military leader, Sharon was also known as "the bulldozer" for his aggressive style.

Short and burly -- he was 5-foot-7 and weighed well over 250 pounds before his debilitating stroke in 2006 -- Sharon seemed larger than life. Proud and defiant, he liked to remind Israelis that he fought in every one of the country's five wars since its founding more than half a century ago.

Born in 1928 to Russian immigrants, Sharon first fought in the Jewish militia whose founding preceded statehood in 1948. Sharon then rose swiftly through the ranks of the Israeli army, making his name on the battlefield as he went. His bold advance across the Suez Canal helped turn the tide of the 1973 Mideast war.

But Sharon also masterminded Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The unapproved military strike stopped Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization from using Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, but it also resulted in the massacre of hundreds of innocent Palestinians.

An Israeli commission found Sharon indirectly responsible and in early 1983, he was removed from his post as defense minister. His political future seemed doomed, but he would gradually resurrect his career, serving in parliament and holding a variety of cabinet posts.

Sharon defied international protests, leading a push to build dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. But after his party's election defeat in 1999, Sharon devoted more of his time to his sheep farm in southern Israel.

Failed peace talks and a Palestinian uprising, however, would draw him back onto the political stage. In 2001, Sharon was elected prime minister in a stunning landslide.

It was in his second term that Sharon stunned observers across the world -- including his domestic allies -- by offering Palestinians statehood and classifying Israel's rule over them an "occupation."

Prior to withdrawing from the Gaza Strip and giving 1.3 million Palestinians a degree of autonomy after decades of Israeli rule, Sharon had always maintained a contrarily hard line.

As a member of parliament, he had never voted in favor of any of Israel's peace agreements with neighboring Arab states. He consistently refused to shake the hand of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who he called a murderer and a liar.

Sharon was a founding member and former head of the conservative Likud party. But in 2005, he broke away from the party and founded a new centrist party, Kadima ("Forward").

On Saturday, former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted Sharon's politics in a statement offering their condolences.

"Ariel Sharon gave his life to Israel - to bring it into being, to sustain and preserve it, and at the end of his long service, to create a new political party committed to both a just peace and lasting security," the Clintons said. "It was an honor to work with him, argue with him, and watch him always trying to find the right path for his beloved country."

In January 2006, Sharon's career was cut short when he suffered a massive stroke.

Ehud Olmert, the deputy prime minister and fellow Kadima party member, was confirmed as acting prime minister. Before suffering the incapacitating stroke, Sharon enjoyed enormous popularity and a wide lead in the polls. His Kadima party went on to win the largest number of seats in the March 2006 elections.

Supporters viewed Sharon as a leader who worked toward peace without compromising Israel's security. Many Israelis also consider him a war hero who helped defend the country during some of its greatest struggles.

Sharon's critics in Israel, however, say he undermined the peace process and surrendered too much security in exchange for peace with the Gaza pullout.

The divergent views on Sharon extended to the White House. Ronald Reagan, writing in his autobiography "An American Life," called then-defense minister Sharon "a bellicose man who seemed to be chomping at the bit to start a war."

In 2003, however, President George W. Bush referred to him as "a man of peace."

On Saturday, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement saying that Ban was "saddened" by Sharon's death.

"The Secretary-General calls on Israel to build on the late Prime Minister's legacy of pragmatism to work towards the long overdue achievement of an independent and viable Palestinian state, next to a secure Israel," the statement read. "At this time of national mourning, the Secretary-General renews the commitment of the United Nations to work alongside the Government and the people of Israel for peace and security."



Sources: 60-Minutes, AP, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Youtube

Afghanistan Becomes U.S. Ally; American Troops Still Slated To Exit In 2014

U.S. Grants Special Ally Status to Afghans, Easing Fears of Abandonment

The United States declared Afghanistan a major, non-NATO ally on Saturday, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton personally delivering the news of Afghanistan’s entry into a club that includes Israel, Japan, Pakistan and other close Asian and Middle Eastern allies.

The move, announced as Mrs. Clinton stood with President Hamid Karzai amid the rose beds and towering trees on the grounds of the presidential palace here, was part of a broad strategic partnership deal signed by the United States and Afghanistan in May, she said. The pact went into effect last week.

“Please know that the United States will be your friend,” she told Mr. Karzai. “We are not even imagining abandoning Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. We are building a partnership with Afghanistan that will endure far into the future.”

The designation by the United States grants a country special privileges, like access to American military training and excess military supplies, Mrs. Clinton said.

In a separate statement, the State Department said Afghanistan would also be able to obtain loans of equipment from the United States and financing for leasing equipment. The agreement does not, however, “entail any security commitment” by the United States to Afghanistan, the State Department said.

Iraq was never given the status of a major ally, and American troops withdrew last year.

Afghanistan’s designation as a formal ally was the latest in a series of recent American moves that have eased — though not erased — Afghan fears of being abandoned at the end of NATO’s combat mission in 2014.

The moves also appear to have already yielded one dividend for the United States: Mr. Karzai has not recently lashed out at his backers, as he has in the past, at one point calling Americans “demons.”

On Saturday, he welcomed Mrs. Clinton, calling her “my old American friend” in his remarks. “We appreciate your concern and good will toward Afghanistan,” he said.

Later, as Mrs. Clinton said she was sorry to have to leave so soon, Mr. Karzai offered what he said was an old saying in Persian: “When a friend is alive, they will meet again.”

American and Afghan officials say they now must turn to working out a deal that would keep a residual American force here to continue training Afghan soldiers and tracking down insurgents after 2014. Talks on the arrangement have not yet begun, American officials say. Estimates of the number of troops that could stay vary from as little as 10,000 to as many as 25,000 or 30,000.

But Mrs. Clinton reiterated on Saturday that Washington did envision keeping American troops in Afghanistan, where they would provide the kind of air power and surveillance capabilities needed to give Afghan forces an edge over the Taliban.

“This is the kind of relationship that we think will be especially beneficial as we do the transition and as we plan for the post-2014 presence,” she said. “It will open the door to Afghanistan’s military to have a greater capability and a broader kind of relationship with the United States and especially the United States military.”

Mrs. Clinton made a short stop in Kabul en route to Tokyo, where an international conference will be held to raise money to support the Afghan government after 2014. At the American Embassy, she praised the work done by civilians in the war. State Department officials said that her remarks were intended to rebut what many in the State Department consider unfair criticism of their work in Afghanistan, where they have often been portrayed as not carrying their weight compared with the military.

But American soldiers and civilians alike have faced one common struggle: assuaging Afghan fears of abandonment. Many here fear that the country is headed toward a repeat of the early 1990s, when the fall of the Soviet-backed government, coupled with an American pullback from the region, left Afghanistan mired in a brutal civil war.

The Taliban grew out of the chaos, and they quickly took over much of the country.

Along with reassuring Afghans, Mrs. Clinton made clear that she was also sending a message to the Taliban.

The alliance and other American commitments to Afghanistan “should make clear to the Taliban that they cannot wait us out,” she said, according to a copy of her prepared remarks. “They can renounce international terrorism and commit to an Afghan peace process, or they will face the increasingly capable Afghan national security forces, backed by the United States.”

At the same time, Washington remains committed to the stalled Afghan peace process, she said. The insurgents suspended talks in March — halting negotiations before they really began — over delays in a proposed prisoner swap that would have the United States release five Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier known to be held by the insurgents.

Designating Afghanistan an ally, however, has the potential to raise awkward issues for the United States. There is Afghanistan’s hot-and-cold relationship with Pakistan, also an ally, and the possibility the two neighbors could have a falling-out, especially if Afghan officials believe in the years after 2014 that their Pakistani counterparts continue to aid the Taliban.

Afghanistan, one of the 10 poorest countries in the world, is also the least developed of America’s major, non-NATO allies by a wide margin. Other allies — like South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Thailand — are far more capable of defending themselves and policing their own territory; Afghanistan is capable of doing that now and for the foreseeable future only with ample American help.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Quells 1967 Israeli Borders Ire; Bush Invoked Same Policy

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"Congratulations America! "You got bin Laden. Good riddance!"

"Some settlements will end up beyond Israel's (current) borders, But "Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967."


Pres. Obama:
"It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years," including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides."




As It Relates To President Obama Recently Proposing Israel Return To Her 1967 Or Pre-1967 Borders, I Really Don't Understand What All The Fuss Is About Since Former President G.W. Bush Invoked The Same Policy While Still In Office.

When Bush Proposed Such Policy Does Anyone Recall The Media (Especially CNN & Fox News) Blasting Him About It?

I Don't!

For The Record Pres. Obama Wasn't Attempting To Throw Israel Under The Bus Or Damage Our Alliance Partnership With Israel.

Instead He Was Encouraging Peace Talks Between Israeli & Palestinian Leaders, In Hopes Of Them Hashing Out An Agreement Both Countries Can Live With For Many Years To Come.

Let's Just Face It Folks, This Unnecessary, Fake Anti-Semitic Controversy Is Nothing More Than A Mainstream Media Ploy To Scare Jewish Voters Away From Pres. Obama In 2012.

It Won't Work!

Oh Well Such Is The Dirty World Of Politics Before Another General Election.

Peace In The Middle East!






Obama seeks to reassure Israel on Mideast policy in speech at AIPAC conference


President Obama sought to reassure Israel and its supporters of “ironclad” U.S. support Sunday in a speech to a Jewish lobbying group that also warned that time could be running out for a peace accord with Palestinians.

Obama, wading afresh into a topic that evoked anger from Israeli leaders last week, insisted again that 1967 boundary lines should be the starting point for talks on a new Palestinian state. But he allowed that the dividing line would be negotiated to accommodate Israeli settlements and security needs.

“Israelis and Palestinians will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967,” Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) at its annual conference in Washington.

While sticking to the views he outlined in a Middle East policy speech Thursday, Obama more clearly aligned his position on borders to one espoused by the George W. Bush administration in 2004. The Bush White House had concluded that a return to the precise boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war was “not realistic,” because of the presence of large Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Acknowledging that Israel faced “hard choices” and security risks, Obama argued that stalling on peace negotiations posed even greater dangers for the country’s survival. The Arab Spring movement and changing demographic forces — including growing numbers of Palestinians west of the Jordan River — present long-term challenges to Israel that will be resolved only by the creation of separate homelands for Jews and Palestinians, he said.

Meanwhile, Israel faces increasing political isolation as Palestinians press their demands for international recognition of a Palestinian state, Obama said.

“No matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option,” he said. “The status quo is unsustainable.”

Reassurances

Obama also reiterated themes of unshakable support for Israel that brought loud applause from the packed auditorium of nearly 10,000. He affirmed U.S. opposition to a Palestinian plan to seek a vote in the U.N. General Assembly on Palestinian statehood in September. He vowed to help Israel defend itself, promising U.S. military assistance on missile defense and pledging to block Iranian nuclear aspirations. And he assailed a recent Palestinian unity agreement that elevated the stature of the Hamas movement, which the United States and Israel regard as a terrorist group.

“No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction,” he said.

Obama said he was not surprised by the uproar over his Thursday speech but added that “if there is controversy, it is not based on substance.”

“What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately,” he said. “I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.”

While the president’s core message differed little, Obama appeared to have succeeded in easing the concerns of some Israelis who had sharply criticized his speech Thursday.

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

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who met with Obama for more than two hours Friday, issued a statement saying he was “determined to work with President Obama to find ways to renew peace negotiations.”

“I share the president’s desire to advance peace and I appreciate his efforts, past and present, to achieve this goal,” Netanyahu said in a statement released by his office.

The Israeli leader, initially angered by Obama’s call for 1967 border lines as a starting point for negotiations, has since told aides that he is reassured about Obama’s intentions after their talks Friday.

A ‘positive change’

Josh Block, a former AIPAC spokesman who is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, said Obama’s speech Sunday was a “strong reaffirmation of the U.S.-Israel relationship and represented an important and positive change” from his remarks Thursday.

“By adding a whole section to the speech that was missing on Thursday, President Obama put himself in line with presidents since Lyndon Johnson who have said again and again, Israel cannot go back to the 1949/1967 lines,” Block said. “This is an important and crucial change from what he said last week.”

Other Middle East experts said Obama had made important progress in linking the peace process with Israel’s future security.

“If this is the beginning of a move to publicly convince Israelis and AIPAC partisans about the importance of peace in the language that they best understand — i.e. security — then it’s a really good step,” said Joel Rubin, chief operating officer for the National Security Network, a progressive-leaning think tank.

A Palestinian official also expressed cautious support for the president’s remarks and appeared to offer hope that the push for a U.N. vote in September could be delayed if there is significant progress toward a peace settlement.

“We are not in the business of delegitimizing Israel. We’re in the business of legitimizing Palestinians,” Maen Rashid Areikat, a Palestinian diplomat and chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s delegation in Washington, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Yet a key Arab advocate for Mideast peace said in remarks released Sunday that he had little hope for progress in the near future.

“My instincts tell me not to expect much over the next couple of months, unfortunately,” King Abdullah II of Jordan told ABC News’s “This Week” in an interview taped before Obama’s Thursday speech. “I just have a feeling that we’re going to be living with the status quo for 2011.”

Although questions about his Mideast policy are likely to linger, Obama will be tending to other allies during a weeklong trip to Ireland, England, France and Poland that begins late Sunday.

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

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

View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, FBI, Fox News, MSNBC, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Hillary Clinton Condemns Wikileaks; Embarrassing Breach Of Trust

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

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

Clinton: "Leaks Tear At The Fabric Of Government"


U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned on Monday the leak of more than 250,000 classified State Department documents, saying the U.S. was taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who "stole" the information.

In her first public comments since the weekend release of the classified State Department cables, Clinton said online whistleblower Wikileaks acted illegally in posting the material. She said the Obama administration was "aggressively pursuing" those responsible for the leak.

Clinton's comments come as the Obama administration moved into damage control mode, trying to contain fallout from unflattering assessments of world leaders and revelations about backstage U.S. diplomacy.

She said the document leaks "tear at the fabric" of responsible government and that the U.S. "deeply regrets" the disclosures. While maintaining that the leaks erode trust between nations, Clinton also said she was "confident" that U.S. partnerships would withstand the challenges posed by the latest revelations.

The publication of the secret cables on Sunday amplified widespread global alarm about Iran's nuclear ambitions and unveiled occasional U.S. pressure tactics aimed at hot spots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Korea. The leaks also disclosed bluntly candid impressions from both diplomats and other world leaders about America's allies and foes .

According to the vast cache of diplomatic cables, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran's nuclear program and China directed cyber attacks on the United States.

Bristling over the unauthorized release, President Barack Obama on Monday ordered a government-wide review of how agencies safeguard sensitive information.

The Office of Management and Budget told agencies to establish security assessment teams to ensure that employees do not have broader access to classified information than what is needed to do their jobs.

'Cut off the head of the snake'

Among the revelations in Britain's Guardian newspaper — which received an advance look at the documents along with the New York Times, France's Le Monde, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais — Saudi King Abdullah is reported to have "frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program."

"Cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, quotes the king as saying during a meeting with U.S. Gen. David Petraeus in April 2008.

The cables unearthed new revelations about long-simmering nuclear trouble spots, detailing U.S., Israeli and Arab world fears of Iran's growing nuclear program, American concerns about Pakistan's atomic arsenal and U.S. discussions about a united Korean peninsula as a long-term solution to North Korean aggression.

Iran's president said Monday that the leaked memos recounting Arab calls for the U.S. to launch a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities were intended to stir "mischief."

"We don't give any value to these documents," Ahmadinejad told a news conference. "It's without legal value. Iran and regional states are friends. Such acts of mischief have no impact on relations between nations."

Ahmadinejad alleged the leaks were an "organized" effort by the U.S. to stir trouble between Iran and Arab neighbors.

The Guardian said officials in Jordan and Bahrain have also openly called for Iran's nuclear program to be stopped by any means and that leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran "as 'evil,' an 'existential threat' and a power that 'is going to take us to war.'"

Those documents may prove the trickiest because even though the concerns of the Gulf Arab states are known, their leaders rarely offer such stark appraisals in public.

Disclosures about U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program are a surprise public relations windfall for Israel, a former Israeli national security adviser said on Monday.

The secret cables showed Israel trying to prod a sometimes skeptical Washington into tougher action — such as sanctions, subversion, and even a military strike by 2011 — against Tehran.

"If there is something on the Iranian issue that, in my opinion, happens to help Israel, it is that these leaks show that Arab countries like Saudi Arabia are far more interested in Iran than they are in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example," Giora Eiland, a retired Israeli general who served as national security adviser to former prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, told Israel Radio.

None of the disclosures appeared particularly explosive, but their publication could become problems for the officials concerned and for any secret initiatives they had preferred to keep quiet. The massive release of material intended for diplomatic eyes only is sure to ruffle feathers in foreign capitals, a certainty that already prompted U.S. diplomats to scramble in recent days to shore up relations with key allies in advance of the leaks.

At Clinton's first stop in Astana, Kazakhstan, she will be attending a summit of officials from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a diplomatic grouping that includes many officials from countries cited in the leaked cables.

White House playing defense

The White House immediately condemned the release of the WikiLeaks documents, saying "such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government."

Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, called the release very damaging.

"The catastrophic issue here is just a breakdown in trust," he said Monday, adding that many other countries — allies and foes alike — are likely to ask, " 'Can the United States be trusted? Can the United States keep a secret?' "

U.S. officials may also have to mend fences after revelations that they gathered personal information on other diplomats. The leaks cited American memos encouraging U.S. diplomats at the United Nations to collect detailed data about the U.N. secretary-general, his team and foreign diplomats — going beyond what is considered the normal run of information-gathering expected in diplomatic circles.

Le Monde said a memo asked U.S. diplomats to collect basic contact information about U.N. officials that included Internet passwords, credit card numbers and frequent flyer numbers. They were also asked to obtain fingerprints, ID photos, DNA and iris scans of people of interest to the United States, Le Monde said.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley played down the diplomatic spying allegations. "Our diplomats are just that, diplomats," he said. "They collect information that shapes our policies and actions. This is what diplomats, from our country and other countries, have done for hundreds of years."

The White House noted that "by its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information. It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions."

"Nevertheless, these cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world," the White House said.

Comments such a description of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's head of state, as playing "Robin to (Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin's Batman," are sure to embarrass the Obama administration and to complicate its diplomacy.

The White House said the release of the documents could endanger the lives of people who live under "oppressive regimes" and "deeply impact" the foreign policy interests of the United States, its allies and partners around the world.

"To be clear — such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

"By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals," he said.

Security analysts tended to agree that the release of the documents was a severe blow to U.S. diplomacy, undermining the confidentiality that is vital for foreign leaders and activists to talk candidly to U.S. officials.

"This is pretty devastating," Roger Cressey, a partner at Goodharbor Consulting and a former U.S. cyber security and counter-terrorism official, said.

The New York Times said "the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed the administration was trying to cover up alleged evidence of serious "human rights abuse and other criminal behavior" by the U.S. government. WikiLeaks posted the documents just hours after it claimed its website had been hit by a cyberattack that made the site inaccessible for much of the day.

The Times highlighted documents that indicated the U.S. and South Korea were "gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea" and discussing the prospects for a unified country if the isolated, communist North's economic troubles and political transition lead it to implode.

The Times also cited diplomatic cables describing unsuccessful U.S. efforts to prod Pakistani officials to remove highly enriched uranium from a reactor out of fear that the material could be used to make an illicit atomic device. And the newspaper cited cables that showed Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, telling Gen. David Petraeus that his country would pretend that American missile strikes against a local al-Qaida group had come from Yemen's forces.

The paper also cited documents showing the U.S. used hardline tactics to win approval from countries to accept freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. It said Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if its president wanted to meet with President Barack Obama and said the Pacific island of Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to take in a group of detainees.

'Forget about democracy in Iraq'

The leaked documents, the majority of which are from 2007 or later, also disclose U.S. allegations that China's Politburo directed an intrusion into Google's computer systems, part of a broader coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by Chinese government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws, the Times reported.

According to the documents, leading oil exporter Saudi Arabia offered to promote energy ties with China if Beijing backed sanctions against Iran, the Times said.

The kingdom is the top crude oil supplier for China, the world's second-largest oil consumer.

"(Saudi) Deputy Foreign Minister Dr Prince Torki ... explained that Saudi Arabia understood China was concerned about having access to energy supplies, which could be cut off by Iran, and wanted to attract more trade and investment," a diplomatic dispatch said, the newspaper reported on its website.

"Saudi Arabia was willing to provide assurances on those scores to China, but only in exchange for tangible Chinese actions to restrain Iran's drive for nuclear weapons."

Le Monde focused on an exchange between President Nicolas Sarkozy's top foreign advisor, Jean David Levitte, with American undersecretary Phillip Gordon. Levitte describes Venezuela's Hugo Chavez as "crazy" and says he is "turning one of the richest Latin American countries into another Zimbabwe."

Der Spiegel reported that the cables portrayed German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle in unflattering terms. It said American diplomats saw Merkel as risk-averse and Westerwelle as largely powerless.

The German magazine also said Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek claimed the Iraq war was the "biggest mistake ever committed" and advised the U.S. to "forget about democracy in Iraq." He said the best hope for a peaceful transition once American forces leave is for there to be a military coup.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, meanwhile, was described as erratic and in the near constant company of a Ukrainian nurse who was described in one cable as "a voluptuous blonde," according to the Times.

WikiLeaks' action was widely condemned.

Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on Sunday called the release the "Sept. 11 of world diplomacy," in that everything that had once been accepted as normal has now changed.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said it was an "irresponsible disclosure of sensitive official documents" while Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, called the document release "unhelpful and untimely."

John Kornblum, a former U.S. ambassador to Germany, told German broadcaster ZDF that the disclosures could have a "severe" impact.

"If you now speak with an American diplomat, you have to be worried that it will appear in the newspaper the next day," he added.

The French government issued a statement saying it was "very much in solidarity with the American administration."

In Australia, Assange's home country, Attorney General Robert McClelland said law enforcement officials were investigating whether WikiLeaks broke any laws.

The State Department's top lawyer warned Assange late Saturday that lives and military operations would be put at risk if the cables were released. Legal adviser Harold Koh said WikiLeaks would be breaking the law if it went ahead. He also rejected a request from Assange to cooperate in removing sensitive details from the documents.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Youtube

American Diplomacy vs Wikileaks Release: Could Destroy International Relationships

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

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

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels


A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks posted 220 cables, some redacted to protect diplomatic sources, in the first installment of the archive on its Web site on Sunday.

The disclosure of the cables is sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. A statement from the White House on Sunday said: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.”

The White House said the release of what it called “stolen cables” to several publications was a “reckless and dangerous action” and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk. The statement noted that reports often include “candid and often incomplete information” whose disclosure could “deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world.”

The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in coming days:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Thinking about an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

An intriguing alliance: American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoyed supremacy over all other public figures in Russia, he was undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often ignored his edicts.

Arms deliveries to militants: Cables describe the United States’ failing struggle to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has amassed a huge stockpile since its 2006 war with Israel. One week after President Bashar al-Assad promised a top State Department official that he would not send “new” arms to Hezbollah, the United States complained that it had information that Syria was providing increasingly sophisticated weapons to the group.

¶ Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

The 251,287 cables, first acquired by WikiLeaks, were provided to The Times by an intermediary on the condition of anonymity. Many are unclassified, and none are marked “top secret,” the government’s most secure communications status. But some 11,000 are classified “secret,” 9,000 are labeled “noforn,” shorthand for material considered too delicate to be shared with any foreign government, and 4,000 are designated both secret and noforn.

Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly protect.”

The Times, after consultations with the State Department, has withheld from articles and removed from documents it is posting online the names of some people who spoke privately to diplomats and might be at risk if they were publicly identified. The Times is also withholding some passages or entire cables whose disclosure could compromise American intelligence efforts. While the White House said it anticipated WikiLeaks would make public “several hundred thousand” cables Sunday night, the organization posted only 220 released and redacted by The Times and several European publications.

The cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States’ relations with the world. They depict the Obama administration struggling to sort out which Pakistanis are trustworthy partners against Al Qaeda, adding Australians who have disappeared in the Middle East to terrorist watch lists, and assessing whether a lurking rickshaw driver in Lahore, Pakistan, was awaiting fares or conducting surveillance of the road to the American Consulate.

They show officials managing relations with a China on the rise and a Russia retreating from democracy. They document years of effort to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon — and of worry about a possible Israeli strike on Iran with the same goal.

Even when they recount events that are already known, the cables offer remarkable details.

For instance, it has been previously reported that the Yemeni government has sought to cover up the American role in missile strikes against the local branch of Al Qaeda. But a cable’s fly-on-the-wall account of a January meeting between the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the American commander in the Middle East, is breathtaking.

“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Mr. Saleh said, according to the cable sent by the American ambassador, prompting Yemen’s deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament” that Yemen had carried out the strikes.

Mr. Saleh, who at other times resisted American counterterrorism requests, was in a lighthearted mood. The authoritarian ruler of a conservative Muslim country, Mr. Saleh complains of smuggling from nearby Djibouti, but tells General Petraeus that his concerns are drugs and weapons, not whiskey, “provided it’s good whiskey.”

Likewise, press reports detailed the unhappiness of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, when he was not permitted to set up his tent in Manhattan or to visit ground zero during a United Nations session last year.

But the cables add a touch of scandal and alarm to the tale. They describe the volatile Libyan leader as rarely without the companionship of “his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde.” They reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia. The American ambassador to Libya told Colonel Qaddafi’s son “that the Libyan government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique,” a cable reported to Washington.

The cables also disclose frank comments behind closed doors. Dispatches from early this year, for instance, quote the aging monarch of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, as speaking scathingly about the leaders of Iraq and Pakistan.

Speaking to another Iraqi official about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, King Abdullah said, “You and Iraq are in my heart, but that man is not.” The king called President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan the greatest obstacle to that country’s progress. “When the head is rotten,” he said, “it affects the whole body.”

The American ambassador to Eritrea reported last year that “Eritrean officials are ignorant or lying” in denying that they were supporting the Shabab, a militant Islamist group in Somalia. The cable then mused about which seemed more likely.

As he left Zimbabwe in 2007 after three years as ambassador, Christopher W. Dell wrote a sardonic account of Robert Mugabe, that country’s aging and erratic leader. The cable called him “a brilliant tactician” but mocked “his deep ignorance on economic issues (coupled with the belief that his 18 doctorates give him the authority to suspend the laws of economics).”

The possibility that a large number of diplomatic cables might become public has been discussed in government and media circles since May. That was when, in an online chat, an Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, described having downloaded from a military computer system many classified documents, including “260,000 State Department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world.” In an online discussion with Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, Private Manning said he had delivered the cables and other documents to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Lamo reported Private Manning’s disclosures to federal authorities, and Private Manning was arrested. He has been charged with illegally leaking classified information and faces a possible court-martial and, if convicted, a lengthy prison term.

In July and October, The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel published articles based on documents about Afghanistan and Iraq. Those collections were placed online by WikiLeaks, with selective redactions of the Afghan documents and much heavier redactions of the Iraq reports.

Fodder for Historians

Traditionally, most diplomatic cables remain secret for decades, providing fodder for historians only when the participants are long retired or dead. The State Department’s unclassified history series, titled “Foreign Relations of the United States,” has reached only 1972.

While an overwhelming majority of the quarter-million cables provided to The Times are from the post-9/11 era, several hundred date from 1966 to the 1990s. Some show diplomats struggling to make sense of major events whose future course they could not guess.

In a 1979 cable to Washington, Bruce Laingen, an American diplomat in Tehran, mused with a knowing tone about the Iranian revolution that had just occurred: “Perhaps the single dominant aspect of the Persian psyche is an overriding egoism,” Mr. Laingen wrote, offering tips on exploiting this psyche in negotiations with the new government. Less than three months later, Mr. Laingen and his colleagues would be taken hostage by radical Iranian students, hurling the Carter administration into crisis and, perhaps, demonstrating the hazards of diplomatic hubris.

In 1989, an American diplomat in Panama City mulled over the options open to Gen. Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian leader, who was facing narcotics charges in the United States and intense domestic and international political pressure to step down. The cable called General Noriega “a master of survival”; its author appeared to have no inkling that one week later, the United States would invade Panama to unseat General Noriega and arrest him.

In 1990, an American diplomat sent an excited dispatch from Cape Town: he had just learned from a lawyer for Nelson Mandela that Mr. Mandela’s 27-year imprisonment was to end. The cable conveys the momentous changes about to begin for South Africa, even as it discusses preparations for an impending visit from the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.

The voluminous traffic of more recent years — well over half of the quarter-million cables date from 2007 or later — show American officials struggling with events whose outcomes are far from sure. To read through them is to become a global voyeur, immersed in the jawboning, inducements and penalties the United States wields in trying to have its way with a recalcitrant world.

In an era of satellites and fiber-optic links, the cable retains the archaic name of an earlier technological era. It has long been the tool for the secretary of state to send orders to the field and for ambassadors and political officers to send their analyses to Washington.

The cables have their own lexicon: “codel,” for a Congressional delegation; “visas viper,” for a report on a person considered dangerous; “démarche,” an official message to a foreign government, often a protest or warning.

But the drama in the cables often comes from diplomats’ narratives of meetings with foreign figures, games of diplomatic poker in which each side is sizing up the other and neither is showing all its cards.

Among the most fascinating examples recount American officials’ meetings in September 2009 and February 2010 with Ahmed Wali Karzai, the half brother of the Afghan president and a power broker in the Taliban’s home turf of Kandahar.

They describe Mr. Karzai, “dressed in a crisp white shalwar kameez,” the traditional dress of loose tunic and trousers, appearing “nervous, though eager to express his views on the international presence in Kandahar,” and trying to win over the Americans with nostalgic tales about his years running a Chicago restaurant near Wrigley Field.

But in midnarrative there is a stark alert for anyone reading the cable in Washington: “Note: While we must deal with AWK as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker.” (Mr. Karzai has denied such charges.) And the cables note statements by Mr. Karzai that the Americans, informed by a steady flow of eavesdropping and agents’ reports, believe to be false.

A cable written after the February meeting coolly took note of the deceit on both sides.

Mr. Karzai “demonstrated that he will dissemble when it suits his needs,” the cable said. “He appears not to understand the level of our knowledge of his activities. We will need to monitor his activity closely, and deliver a recurring, transparent message to him” about the limits of American tolerance.

Not All Business

Even in places far from war zones and international crises, where the stakes for the United States are not as high, curious diplomats can turn out to be accomplished reporters, sending vivid dispatches to deepen the government’s understanding of exotic places.

In a 2006 account, a wide-eyed American diplomat describes the lavish wedding of a well-connected couple in Dagestan, in Russia’s Caucasus, where one guest is the strongman who runs the war-ravaged Russian republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.

The diplomat tells of drunken guests throwing $100 bills at child dancers, and nighttime water-scooter jaunts on the Caspian Sea.

“The dancers probably picked upwards of USD 5000 off the cobblestones,” the diplomat wrote. The host later tells him that Ramzan Kadyrov “had brought the happy couple ‘a five-kilo lump of gold’ as his wedding present.”

“After the dancing and a quick tour of the premises, Ramzan and his army drove off back to Chechnya,” the diplomat reported to Washington. “We asked why Ramzan did not spend the night in Makhachkala, and were told, ‘Ramzan never spends the night anywhere.’ ”







NY Times Reporter Defends Profile Of WikiLeaks’ Assange



New York Times reporter John F. Burns considers WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange — the subject of a front-page profile he co-authored Sunday— to be "an incredibly smart man" with an "extremely high IQ."

"But," Burns told The Upshot on Tuesday, "it's odd to me that a man so intelligent, and who calls himself a journalist, could be so unintelligent about the New York Times."

Burns, a Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent and current London bureau chief, pushed back against Assange's contention that the Times engaged in "tabloid activity" when reporting a profile that Assange calls a error-ridden "hit piece."

Assange said Monday at London's Frontline Club that he wasn't surprised by the Times' recent coverage of him, given what he considers the paper's "absolutely disgusting" August profile of Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old army private suspected of supplying the classified documents to WikiLeaks. The Manning piece, Assange said, "removed all higher-level political motivations from him and psychoanalyzed him down to problems in his childhood and a demand for attention."

The WikiLeaks chief also questioned whether the Times simply employs "journalists with extremely bad character" or whether coverage of him and his whistleblower organization is influenced by the "realpolitik that [Times executive editor] Bill Keller has to go through in order to get out any story that depicts the U.S. military in a negative way."

Assange's harsh words for the Times comes after WikiLeaks provided the paper with more than 400,000 secret Iraq documents in advance of Friday's publication online — the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history. This summer, the organization also provided more than 75,000 Afghanistan documents to the Times weeks before July's massive leak. In response to those suggesting the Times has focused too heavily on Assange as opposed to the materials contained in the latest WikiLeaks leak, Burns noted that the paper's staff have "written many, many thousands of words about the documents." (The Times' extensive archive of Iraq and Afghanistan stories can be found here).

Burns said he doesn't "recall ever having been the subject of such absolutely, relentless vituperation" following a story in his 35 years at the Times. He said his email inbox has been full of denunciations from readers and a number of academics at top-tier schools such as Harvard, Yale, and MIT. Some, he said, used "language that I don't think they would use at their own dinner table." Such heated reactions to the profile, Burns said, shows "just how embittered the American discourse on these two wars has become."

In the 2,000-word piece — "WikiLeaks Chief On Run, Trailed By His Notoriety" — Burns and reporter Ravi Somaiya described Assange as the secretive and brilliant driving force behind the global document clearing house. But they also wrote how "some of his own comrades are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior, and nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood." They also noted the recent sexual assault allegations that two women in Sweden brought against Assange.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald called the profile a "sleazy hit piece" and wrote Sunday that it was "filled with every tawdry, scurrilous tabloid rumor" about the WikiLeaks founder. Greenwald likened Burns to the "Nixonian henchmen" who plotted against Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg and described him as "one of the media's most enthusiastic supporters of the occupation of Iraq." (Burns has also received much praise for his years as the paper's Baghdad bureau chief, and I profiled him upon his leaving that position in 2007).

"The Iraq War is John Burns' war, and for the crime of making that war look bad, Julian Assange must have his character smeared and his psychiatric health maligned," Greenwald wrote. "Burns — along with his co-writer Ravi Somaiya — is happy to viciously perform that function."

Burns took issue with Greenwald's suggestion that he's "a borderline-sociopath" who's now coping with the guilt of having "enabled and cheered" on the Iraq war. "This is a man who has set out, as he sees it," Burns said of Greenwald, "to disparage a smear job and then engages in language like this, which is puzzling to say the least." [See Update]

The profile, Burns said, is "an absolutely standard journalistic endeavor that we would use with any story of similar importance in the United States." Burns said he spent three months working on the story and, along with colleagues, spoke with more than 30 sources affiliated with WikiLeaks — including Assange — five days before publication.

Burns added that the Times is "not in the business of hagiography" but in the "business of giving our readers the fullest context for these documents" and the Assange's motivations. "To suggest that doing that is some kind of grotesque journalistic sin, and makes me a sociopath," Burns said, "strikes me as pretty odd."

Burns hasn't been Assange's only media target of over the past few days.

Assange returned to CNN Monday night, just three days after walking out of a CNN interview after getting questioned about his personal legal issues and reports of growing staff dysfunction within WikiLeaks. Host Larry King — who initially thought the reclusive Assange walked off the set again — brought up the previous interview.

"We released 400,000 classified documents, the most extraordinary history of a war to have ever been released in our civilization," Assange said. "Those documents cover 109,000 deaths. That's a serious matter, and it's extraordinarily disrespectful to those people to start conflating the first revelation of that material with any sort of tabloid journalism. And CNN should know better, and I believe does know better than to do that."

Assange went on to say that matters concerning his personal life are not proportionate to what's been revealed in WikiLeaks' cache of Iraq war documents. "It is not right to bring in sensational and, in fact, false claims, a relatively trivial matter compared to the deaths of 109,000 people," Assange said. "And it is — I mean, CNN should be ashamed of doing that. And you, Larry, you actually should be ashamed, as well."

Assange did not respond to The Upshot's emails.

UPDATE:

Greenwald has responded to Burns' comments in this piece, and said that he wasn't specifically calling the Times reporter a "sociopath." Greenwald explains:

"I didn't actually call Burns that. What I wrote was that, in light of what these documents reveal, "even" a borderline-sociopath would be awash with guilt over having supported this war and would be eager to distract attention away from that -- by belittling the importance of the documents and focusing instead on the messenger: Julian Assange. In other words, there's only one category of people who would not feel such guilt -- an absolute sociopath -- and I was generously assuming that Burns was not in that category, which is why I would expect (and hope) that he is driven by guilt over the war he supported. That's the most generous explanation I can think of for why -- in the face of these startling, historic revelations -- his journalistic choice was to pass on personality chatter about Assange."


View Larger Map



Sources: Wikileaks, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Yahoo News, Youtube, Google Maps