Showing posts with label Kerry’s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kerry’s. Show all posts

Monday, February 10, 2014

Sarah Palin’s Take on Kerry’s Treatment of Israel

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Sarah Palin’s Take on Kerry’s Treatment of Israel

Saturday, February 1, 2014

The world at war: The mind, journalism, freedoms... Israel-Palestine: Kerry’s One-sided “Framework Agreement”



This week, Martin Indyk and Thomas Friedman released details of John Kerry’s unacceptable acquiescence to Israeli demands in his soon to be released “framework agreement”. 


The framework is dead-on-arrival if these details are correct.  Kerry is demanding that the Palestinians declare that Israel is a Jewish state.  Is the U.S. officially a Christian nation?  No.  What happens to the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Arabs [Muslims and Christians] in a “Jewish state”? John Kerry AIPAC 480 x 360


John Kerry’s Zionist credentials on display at an AIPAC conference (right)


John Kerry also is demanding that the Palestinians agree to give up the Right of Return.  For all this, what is John Kerry asking the Israelis to concede?  One tiny “concession” already laid out in international law: that the Palestinians can have their capital in East Jerusalem.


Pressure must be maintained on Mahmoud Abbas who does not have the authority from the Palestinian people to concede to Kerry’s demands.


See Thomas Friedman in the NYT.


and Martin Indyk in the New Republic


Copyright Veterans News Now 2014


http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/02/01/kerrys-ridiculously-one-sided-framework-agreement-is-doa/





Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]


www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


For media inquiries: [email protected]





Global Research



The world at war: The mind, journalism, freedoms...

Israel-Palestine: Kerry’s One-sided “Framework Agreement”

Saturday, December 14, 2013

The Consequences of Kerry’s Vanity Project


The Russian-brokered deal for the West to partner with Bashar al-Assad to start clearing out his chemical weapons seemed to announce what everyone had already figured out: the Obama administration’s goal in Syria was not a rebel victory. Yet in truth the turning point in public perception of President Obama’s approach to Syria probably took place when the Wall Street Journal broke the news that the White House still hadn’t fulfilled its pledge to provide weapons to the moderate opposition.


The reason for the cold feet was calculating–and devastating to the rebels:


The Obama administration doesn’t want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be even worse for U.S. interests than the current stalemate.


U.S. officials attribute the delay in providing small arms and munitions from the CIA weapons program to the difficulty of establishing secure delivery “pipelines” to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, in particular Jihadi militants also battling the Assad regime. …


The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn’t want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn’t want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides.



So the message was clear: the Obama administration had given up on the moderates. The only non-Assad alternative to the moderates was victory by Islamists, who had gained strength and taken over the lead in opposition. It was more important to prevent an Islamist takeover of Syria, according to the administration, than to roll the dice on moderates. And yet we read today a very curious addendum to this, one that undermines the administration’s previous justification for inaction but helps illuminate the administration’s approach to the entire region, including the Iranian issue and Israeli-Palestinian talks.


The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is seeking to protect what really matters to them–the diplomatic photo op:


The Obama administration is willing to consider supporting an expanded Syrian rebel coalition that would include Islamist groups, provided the groups are not allied with al-Qaeda and agree to support upcoming peace talks in Geneva, a senior U.S. official said Thursday. …


The emergence last month of the Islamic Front has presented the administration with a dilemma as it seeks to maintain military pressure on the Syrian government before an opposition-government peace conference next month that it hopes will lead to the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad and the installation of a transitional government.


The SMC, whose Free Syrian Army is the only opposition armed force the United States backs in Syria, has lost both strength and influence to anti-Assad Islamic groups. Among them is the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the al-Nusra Front, both of which have been labeled terrorist groups by Washington.



There are the obvious questions: how will the Obama administration vet the groups? What really constitutes an al-Qaeda “affiliation?” Doesn’t this incentivize Islamists to simply create front groups and workarounds? Why is official affiliation more important than, say, ideology and tactics? The answer to that last question is easy: the administration has decided that it is not fighting a war on terror; it’s fighting a war on al-Qaeda.


That also helps us understand the strategy, such as it is, that underpins the Obama administration’s problem-solving agenda. What the president wants is to preserve the superficial appearance of peace by gathering people in Geneva and signing whatever agreement can be cobbled together. This president prefers style over substance, and he has the perfect compliment in a secretary of state mildly obsessed with resume-padding.


So we got the deal with Assad that took the air out of the tires of his opposition and enabled him to go on killing with glee. Then we got the nuclear deal with Iran, which wasn’t a good deal and in fact may not have been a “deal” at all, just a flaky Potemkin escape hatch for the overmatched Western negotiators.


And now Kerry is back in Israel, where he is claiming that the talks are on schedule to produce a comprehensive, full peace agreement by the end of April. It’s possible that Kerry’s right, and he’s not leading the dangerously delusional vanity project he appears to be–gambling with the lives of others so he can secure a few more of those shiny, overtly ridiculous media profiles he’s been scoring lately. But it remains the case that the talks have stalled after Israel had to release terrorists for the privilege of being part of Kerry’s charade.


That is, Kerry appears to have been played by the Palestinians after getting played by Iran and played by Assad and the Russians before that, and is angling for a chance to be played by Islamist extremists for his next act. This process, of pointless photo ops and clumsy negotiations, is the metric by which this administration grades its foreign policy. And its got another mendacious “victory” planned for Syria.




Commentary Magazine



The Consequences of Kerry’s Vanity Project

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

John Kerry"s "Mr. Magoo" Foreign Policy: Late-Night Comedy Roundup




While most late-night shows tape before he spoke, President Barack Obama’s Tuesday Oval Office address was fodder for The Tonight Show’s Jay Leno and The Late Show’s David Letterman. Leno brought polls into his joke, while Letterman’s Top Ten list enumerated things Americans don’t want to hear in such an address.


The news that Syria may agree to give up its chemical weapons in order to avert strikes was a main topic Wednesday evening. Leno wondered if the time conditions Secretary of State John Kerry were actually concrete, while Conan O’Brien highlighted Russia’s role. Letterman suggested that a new condition from Syria would involve Miley Cyrus, as well. The Daily Show compared Kerry’s ‘rhetorical’ — and possibly accidental — solution to the impaired but lucky 1960s cartoon character Mr. Magoo.


Fast forward to 3:00 to see Letterman’s list of things you don’t want to hear in an Oval Office address.


Read more from Government Executive.






    








Master Feed : The Atlantic



John Kerry"s "Mr. Magoo" Foreign Policy: Late-Night Comedy Roundup