Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Hillary Clinton is LYING About Settlement Agreement

The old joke asks "How do you know if a politician is lying ?" The answer is of course, "Their lips are moving." Hillary Clinton fits snugly into that category. When the Secretary of State was first lady every time she showed her Anti-Israel bias, she lied about it afterward, like her kiss of Mrs Arafat right after the terrorists wife accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian Arab children (her translator screwed up), or when she called for a Palestinian State even when US policy was against it (she was taken out of context).

Now as Secretary of State she continues her lying ways. At a press conference yesterday she said:

With respect to the conditions regarding understandings between the United States and the former Israeli government and the former government of the United States, we have the negotiating record. That is the official record that was turned over to the Obama Administration by the outgoing Bush Administration. There is no memorialization of any informal and oral agreements. If they did occur, which, of course, people say they did, they did not become part of the official position of the United States Government. And there are contrary documents that suggest that they were not to be viewed as in any way contradicting the obligations that Israel undertook pursuant to the Roadmap. And those obligations are very clear.
Maybe she should talk to Elliot Abrams, he was the person in the Bush Administration negotiating with the Sharon government. He confirmed the existence of a deal for the Washington Times
Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser who negotiated the arrangement.... confirmed the deal in an interview last week. "At the time of the Gaza withdrawal, there were lengthy discussions about how settlement activity might be constrained, and in fact it was constrained in the later part of the Sharon years and the Olmert years in accordance with the ideas that were discussed," he said. "There was something of an understanding realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement."
Abrams account agrees with that of Dov Weisglass who negotiated on the Israeli side. Weisglass also give insight into why the agreement was not put into the Road Map document:
At the beginning of 2003, Israel submitted its reservations on the Road Map. On Thursday, April 24, 2003, I headed an Israeli delegation to Secretary of State Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, and other senior administration officials. The issue of the settlements, it was decided, would be “discussed in a separate forum.” This “separate forum” convened on May 1, 2003 in Jerusalem. Senior administration officials Steven Hadley and Elliott Abrams met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and me, and, over the next two days succeeded in working out an exact definition of the term “settlement freeze” in the Road Map. According to this definition, (1) no new settlements would be built, (2) no Palestinian land would be expropriated or otherwise seized for the purpose of settlement, (3) construction within the settlements would be confined to “the existing construction line”, and (4) public funds would not be earmarked for encouraging settlements.
On a further meeting held with Ms. Rice on May 14, 2003, the agreement on the definition of the term “freeze” was confirmed, thus concluding the discussions on Israel’s reservations on the Road Map. Since the meeting also affirmed that the draft of the Road Map would constitute the final document (in part in order to prevent “reopenings” by other parties), the Israeli reservations were not included in the body of the text but rather were publicly recognized by the administration as reservations that “require substantive attention.” The administration further asserted that it “shares Israel’s view” that the reservations are “noteworthy,” and would give them “full and serious consideration” in applying the Road Map (White House communiqué, May 23, 2003). The result, as such, was that the Israeli commitment to a settlement freeze in the Road Map reached during these discussions provided for construction and development in settlements within the “construction line.” Accordingly, two days later (May 25, 2003), the Israeli government approved the version of the Road Map that included Israel’s reservations. Source Israelpoilitik
The two people who negotiated the deal BOTH agree on an account that indicates that Ms Clinton is full of cow chips. Lying about the truth, just another indication of how the Obama administration is anti-Israel.

3 comments:

J Dubya said...

Maybe I just don't get it Sammy. But if perception is reality, I say that over the last 8 years. Israel got more than a fair shake.They even got a green light to destroy everything In sight and still got pushed back be the Hezbolla rebels. The Palestinians got and still do get a raw deal. If peace is to be encouraged and acheived, a two state solution also needs to be encouraged Its only fair. Heck, what in the World have the Jewish people done for the US lately to deserve all of the favoritism. From my perch, the US does nothing but give to Israel with nothing in return. Well, its about time the little guy (palestinians) got some love too.

Carol_Herman said...

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Actually, Obama is selling the old Saudi plan. Where Israel first moves back to its 1948 borders. Leaving everything won during the Six Day War.

This plan was first dragged out to public view, by the NY Times, and Thomas Friedman's article about how the "plan just popped out of the Saud's drawer. It made its way to Beirut. Where Arafat was told that if he went to the conference; he couldn't come back to Israeli territory. So, instead, there was a video link.

This plan doesn't die. But here you're hearing that the Americans bought it. No. They never came out and said so. But those in politics did see the plan coming back. And, back again. Till the last time when the Saud's said "It won't stay out there forever."

I don't think Obama actually has a way to bring the Saudi plan to fruition. He's on the same track as Jimmy Carter.

And, Hillary now will never be a candidate for the presidency of the USA. Not in 2012. Not in 2016. Her career just went "kaput."

One reason she took Obama's offer, rather than, say, like Livni "sit in the opposition" is that her campaign debts were huge! Making it impossible for her to run for re-election in 2010. So, she made a calculated move.

Among these moves? Well, the Clintons like the saudi plan. So did the Bush's. But it carries the counter-weight of destroying political trajectories.

By now, Bibi was supposed to be swinging in the wind. Heck, Obama brought enough rope to the "party."

But you show me Obama's gains, because I see, instead, that he's gonna have to live with his choices.

And, for the time being Bibi doesn't have to say anything at all.

I read, today, too, that the germans expect terror in September; because they have elections coming up. And, so far? The germans are playing a game that they have no backbones.

Sarkozy is HATED in France! Did you know that? And, Brown, in England, is according to one headline Drudge has up "a dead man, walking."

Nobody's got enough charima to carry this forward. And, since we have the Internet, you can read, today, a few days after the Cairo speech, that it was full of inaccuracies. Good for academia. But egg heads aren't "tasty morsels" to most Americans.

You're being sold a bill of goods if you think Obama gained political leverage. Of course, that's just me.

Politics has always been nasty. And, if people split down the middle, you can cheat them and gain the results you want to have.

If you have to have enemies, an ugly bitch like Hillary, is a woman even her own husband cannot stand! Oh, and while I'm at it. Obama is henpecked.

He's NOT FDR, either! He's Huey Long. And, even in the terrible 30's, America didn't pick Huey Long to lead them into the wilderness. While, yeah. The germans and the italians went the wrong way.

Did you see the D-Day lineup? How far we've fallen from seeing Ronald Reagan at Normandy.

Matt Simmons said...

I don't believe Hillary is anti-Israel at heart. I believe she is doing her job as Secretary to Obama's agenda. During the campaign, Hillary gave a heart felt speech to AIPAC that Obama could not touch...well Obama did say, "an undivided Jerusalem" but then reneged on that statement less than 24 hours later. If Hillary was president, I truly believe she would have a different stance than the one that Obama is requiring her to have.