The authors have gone on to write four more updates to this report, which are all available here.  The fourth edition was released in early 2011, following the last Daley term and the passing of the torch to new Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  This fourth report listed over 340 city officials convicted in public corruption cases in the past few decades, with little sign of any slowing in recent years.  The authors listed cases of “bribery, patronage, contract rigging, conflict of interest, nepotism/family ties, clout, and theft,” noting that they were pervasive across a range of agencies.

Chicagoans can be thankful for some prosecutors, but the “City that Works” and the state and federal government functions dealing with it haven’t earned a presumption of innocence.  A careful, cautious and even cynical perspective is warranted when considering the prospects for reform under new Mayor Rahm Emanuel, especially in light of the strong ties that helped lay the basis for his political career in recent decades.

And while thinking about the Chicago political environment and its relevance for the case of Sibel Edmonds, it is useful to be careful about distinctions between the two main parties in our political system.  We have Democrats and Republicans, on the one hand, and the rest of us, on the other hand.  The long train of scandals and convictions such as those laid out by the University of Illinois professors have entrenched bi-partisan roots, with Democrats as well as Republicans breeding disenchantment and suspicion.  The Edmonds case reaches across party lines, as well.

Time Flies, but Same Names Remain Relevant

Another thing to keep in mind when considering the Chicago environment and its relevance for Edmonds’ material is just how fast time flies.  Edmonds was hired by the FBI soon after the events of September 11, 2001.  She was tasked with translating material relating to events over the previous five years, and even earlier.  In other words, even if Chicago has magically turned over a new leaf recently, the period we are looking at was ten to 15 years ago – a more fertile time for corrupt behavior.

• For example, George Ryan, a former Republican governor of Illinois now serving prison time, served as Illinois governor from 1999 to 2003.  His corruption convictions related to his time as governor, a time frame that overlaps with matters Edmonds has described.

•  1999 was also the year that Republican Dennis Hastert was first elected Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.  Hastert, whom Edmonds has named in her allegations, was representing a congressional district in suburbs close to Chicago. 

• In August 2005, Robert Creamer, a significant Chicago area Democratic political consultant, pleaded guilty to bank fraud and other crimes relating to his work leading the Illinois Public Action Fund in the 1990s.  Edmonds has cited Creamer and his wife, current Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, as parties of interest in her material.

• Another person Edmonds has identified as ‘helping to facilitate’ criminal activities was serving in Chicago government before the new Emanuel administration.  This person was Democrat Richard M. Daley, the previous mayor.  The public record has no other specific reference to why Edmonds, who has been otherwise constrained by a dubious legal principle called the ‘state secrets privilege,’ makes this assertion about Daley.  Following the announcement that he wouldn’t seek another mayoral term in late 2010, Daley became a senior fellow at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, one of my alma maters, in 2011.

• Another person named by Edmonds in her material also has become affiliated with the Harris School.  In fact, Edmonds has described him as a ‘key player’ in her allegations.  This person is Mehmet Celebi, a former president of the Turkish American Cultural Alliance.  Among other activities, Celebi has also served as a fundraiser for Democrat Hillary Clinton, a former first lady, U.S. Senator, and current Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.

Some Documents Supporting Edmonds’ Material

Edmonds’ allegations include shocking references to high-level bribery, money laundering, drug dealing, and trafficking in nuclear weapons technology.  She has also referenced material indicating awareness of threats if not foreknowledge of the events of September 11, 2001.  She has described negotiations over a possible invasion of Iraq that took place in the months before September 11, 2001.  She has even referenced evidence of covert operations undertaken with ‘bin Ladens’ in the years before 9/11.

Edmonds has received support for her work from significant people both inside and outside the Beltway, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, on the one hand, and Charles Grassley, still serving as Republican U.S. Senator from Iowa.  And a special inspector general report found credence in her work, as well.

The Edmonds case still hasn’t had the mainstream media attention, or broader public developments, that it has deserved.  But things may be moving more crisply in that direction in recent years.

In March 2010, the FBI released documents under a FOIA request that referenced the Turkish American Cultural Alliance (TACA).   One of them, dated February 9, 2000, was titled “Turkish Investigations in Chicago.”  It carried seven “Case ID” numbers, suggesting seven investigations, all of which were still “pending.”  The document was discussed and emphasized a verbal communication, which directed that no material relating to these investigations should be uploaded via computer, despite department policy to “upload as many serials as possible.”  A second document was dated July 31, 2001.  While heavily redacted, this document still indicated that the sensitivity of these matters had risen further.  It referenced the Turkish American Cultural Alliance, and otherwise retained only two sentences.  They were “Extreme caution must be exercised in the handling of sensitive information contained herein.  No material pertaining to this investigation is to be computer uploaded.”  This document was dated July 31, 2001, and included ten ‘Case ID’ numbers, up from the seven identified a year before. The July 2001 document indicated it was due to be declassified in 2034.

Asked for comment on the released documents, Edmonds’ March 2010 statement included;

“Chicago was the center of it all.  Chicago was the center of the foreign espionage activity, and the center for money laundering, and also a major heroin distribution center.  Celebi was a key player, but Dennis Hastert, Mayor Daley, Robert Creamer and other US officials also helped facilitate these activities.” 

Four months later, coincidentally, Richard M. Daley announced he would not seek another term as mayor of Chicago.

Mehmet Celebi has been a leader in the Turkish-American community in the Chicago area.  Celebi had been the president of the Turkish American Cultural Alliance, the organization identified above. He has also served as a board member of the Washington D.C. based Assembly of Turkish-American Associations.  In addition to his fundraising work for Hillary Clinton, he served as one of her Chicago delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.  Celebi has also been a fundraiser for Rahm Emanuel.  (That’s Rahm in the center, and Celebi over on the right.)

Today, we have allegations and suspicions, not the truth.  The prosecutors that have been working honestly and well to uncover corruption in Chicago deserve our respect, and thanks.  And prosecutors have won many convictions over the years.  But as deep as the roots appear to go, citizens can’t simply rely on criminal authorities working for the government alone to find the truth.  The First Amendment protections for the press, in fact, were adopted and rooted in concern that government might seek to forestall inquiry into its own criminal and otherwise illegitimate behavior.

Bill Bergman has 10 years of experience as a stock market analyst sandwiched around 13 years as an economist and financial markets policy analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He earned an M.B.A. as well as an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago in 1990. Mr. Bergman is currently working with Social Movement Sciences LLC, a new enterprise developing evaluation and funding services for not-for-profit organizations.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

In theory, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guarantees the legal right of the American public to obtain federal agency records. Judicially enforceable, FOIA was designed to ensure public access to Executive Branch records. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that FOIA’s purpose “is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold governors accountable to the governed.”

In practice, FOIA morphed into a monstrosity that not only denies citizens their right to obtain information, but causes some of the requesters to become targets of investigations. The Supreme Court has consistently held that FOIA does not permit agencies to investigate either FOIA requesters or their reasons for submitting requests. In 2004, the Supreme Court held that “[a]s a general rule, withholding information under FOIA cannot be predicated on the identity of the requester.”

President Obama pledged to foster a new era of openness and transparency. On his first day in office, he issued memoranda relating to transparency and open government issues, including “Freedom of Information Act” and “Transparency and Open Government”. Inspirational speeches are great, but actions speak louder than words. The record reflects that during Obama’s presidency FOIA has become even less transparent than before. Those asking the questions and telling the truth are being prosecuted and otherwise attacked at the rate surpassing all prior American presidencies.

Undeterred by the facts, the so-called privacy advocates and government watchdogs (financed largely by the President’s supporters) recently bestowed a Transparency Award upon Obama. Come election time, it will undoubtedly be used to exemplify this administration’s achievements in the area of enhanced transparency. While the Transparency Award is resting next to the Nobel Peace Prize on the Presidential mantel, let’s examine the facts.

One of the government’s most despised agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, has been hard at work trying to steam-clean the wrinkly uniform of its public image. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recently completed an 8-month investigation that exposed the DHS under Secretary Janet Napolitano of corrupting the agency’s FOIA compliance procedures, exerting political pressure on FOIA compliance officers, and undermining the federal government’s accountability to the American people.

A New Era of Openness? How and Why Political Staff at DHS Interfered with the FOIA Process

Sounds bad? Just wait, because it’s a lot worse than you might think. The DHS staff attempted to frustrate the Congressional investigation through official non-cooperation, tampered with witnesses and even tried to steal Committee documents. Yes, you’re reading this right. After a witness interview on March 4, 2011, Reid Cox (one of the DHS lawyers) stuffed Committee’s exhibits into his bag and headed straight for the door. Republicans and Democrats alike protested that the Department’s attorney couldn’t leave with the Committee’s exhibits. Cox disagreed and kept on going. The report noted, “Any attempt to steal Committee documents is a serious matter. If the motive for stealing Committee documents is to use them to conduct a forensic investigation to identify a Committee source, it creates an extremely sensitive situation. The Department was notified that any future efforts to remove documents would not be tolerated.”

In a March 4, 2011 e-mail to the DHS’ Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Nelson Peacock, members of the Congressional committee stated: “[W]e have had some bizarre exchanges with your lawyers. They keep trying to steal the exhibits we show the witnesses.”

What was in those exhibits that the agency is so determined to hide? Some of the highlights include the evidence that career FOIA professionals at the DHS have been stymied in their statutory compliance by the unprecedented intrusion of Napolitano’s political appointees, also known as the “Front Office” staff (Noah Kroloff, John Sandweg, Amy Shlossman, Julia Fox and Jordan Grossman). Chief Privacy Officer and Chief FOIA Officer is another one of Napolitano’s political appointees, Mary Ellen Callahan.

In 2010, the writer of this article was reporting on Janet Napolitano’s testimony before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations. During the hearings, Napolitano repeatedly turned to her unimpressively lethargic staff for answers. Shrugging their shoulders, time and time again, they had nothing to offer. In return, Napolitano parroted their responses to members of the Congress, stating “I’ll have to get back to you on that later.”

The “Front Office” appointees don’t show much respect for either FOIA or agency personnel who intend to comply with the Act’s requirements. As the report reflects, “by July 2009, Amy Shlossman and the rest of the political appointees in the Office of the Secretary had effectively ground the Department’s FOIA operation to a halt. By burdening the FOIA Office with unnecessary questions and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary’s political staff created a problem that did not exist during the previous Administration.”

The documents show that the Secretary’s political staff attempted to edit and amend responsive documents to avoid embarrassment. For example, they insisted upon changing the original document and then submitting the amended version in response to the FOIA request. Career FOIA staff refused to let that happen and informed the “Front Office” staff that they would “under no circumstances alter agency records before they are released to “avoid embarrassment.” The career FOIA staffer was “never forgiven” for this by Mary Ellen Callahan, who refused to speak to her ever again. In December 9, 2010 e-mail exchanges between Napolitano’s political appointees, Callahan complained to John Sandweg about career FOIA staffers, stating “Are you f#*^ kidding me?” and “I have idiots for staff.”

After repeated interference by Napolitano’s political staff with the processing of FOIA requests, the career FOIA staffer offered to meet with the “Front Office” bunch to explain how the release of documents is supposed to work. Napolitano’s cronies saw it as a joke and their e-mails were included in the evidence with which Cox raced to the door. Napolitano’s appointee Amy Schlossman wrote to her colleague John Sandweg, “This woman is a lunatic. You have to attend this mtg–if nothing else, for the comic relief.”

Aggravated with the very idea of learning how FOIA is supposed to work, Amy Shlossman wrote to Jordan Grossman, “This is their [FOIA staff] f*@#^ meeting!!!!!” (the f-bomb appears in all its glory in various e-mail communications fired off by Napolitano’s belligerent appointees). During the meeting with professional FOIA staffers, Napolitano’s Front Office bunch was bored silly. The staffer giving the presentation was kicked under the table to “move it along”, because Amy Schlossman “was bored and looking at her Blackberry”. When asked during the Congressional inquiry what she remembered about the meeting, Amy Schlossman couldn’t recall anything. How surprising.

The Congressional Report details that “Shlossman responded she could not remember, was unaware of, or simply did not know the answer to a question from Committee investigators 79 times during the course of her four-hour interview. Additionally, Shlossman left the interview room six times to confer with counsel, including twice when she was presented an exhibit in the middle of a round of questioning. Having not objected to a single question asked to the three prior witnesses whose interviews were attended by DHS counsel, Deputy General Counsel Joe Maher objected 11 times during Shlossman’s interview. The behavior of the witness and counsel during Shlossman’s interview gave Republican staff present the impression that her testimony was intentionally vague on the advice of counsel.”

Our rights under FOIA are such an inconvenience to the DHS. Anyone who threatens to expose the Agency’s woeful practices pays a heavy price. While the government doesn’t want you to know much about them, they are definitely interested in learning more about you. Making FOIA requests can get you red-flagged and investigated. As the AP reported, “Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano’s political staff with information about the people who asked for records – such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters – and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican.” Every single media request was tagged for the “Front Office” review.

Napolitano’s political appointees lied to Congress and refused to acknowledge that approval from the Secretary’s political staff was required to release a response to a significant FOIA request. In fact, it was. They still get the first crack at the decision as to whether or not FOIA requests are honored. The Congressional report details that the career staffers in the FOIA Office “was not permitted to release responses to these requests without approval from political staff”. To hide their inappropriate activities, the DHS stopped using e-mail and conducted such political approval procedures over the telephone. They were also doing their best to avoid the word “Approval”, replacing it with such cute little terms as “Awareness,” “Good to Go,” “Affirmative Statement,” “Give the Thumbs Up” and “Active Concurrence”. In spite of their effort to obfuscate the facts, they were caught red-handed, courtesy of courageous whistleblowers.

Following the protocol in releasing such records to the requesters causes severe retaliation against the agency personnel. The DHS demoted Catherine Papoi (former deputy unit chief in charge of FOIA) for disclosing that the DHS had illegally sidetracked hundreds of FOIA requests from journalists, watchdog groups and private citizens. Whistleblowers and honest reporters are loathed by the current administration more than they ever were throughout the American history. The Congressional report determined that the DHS abused the (b)(5) exception “to prevent the release of embarrassing records”. Three out of four FOIA career staff interviewed by the Congressional Committee “have been transferred, demoted, or relieved of certain responsibilities”. In the mean time, all of the “political appointees who came to the Department early in 2009 continue to have a significant role in the FOIA response process.”

The report determined that DHS regards FOIA to be “politically undesirable” and keeps a tight grip on the piggy-bank of information, hiding “abusive and embarrassing official behavior” to avoid “both the shame of public scrutiny and potential criminal prosecution”. The report states that maneuvering by the DHS “slowed a congressional investigation and interfered with the Committee’s access to witnesses. Obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime.”

18 U.S.C. § 1505 states, in pertinent part: “Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress — Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.” Unfortunately for all the truth-seekers, DHS officials don’t have to worry about being prosecuted for their crimes – after all, Eric Holder is too busy prosecuting whistleblowers.

Speaking of whistleblowers, Public Law 111 -117 § 714 states: “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, who – (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the employment of such other officer or employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of such other officer or employee or in response to the request or inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, reduces in rank, seniority, stats, pay, or performance of efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other officer or employee, by reason of any communication or contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in paragraph (1).” In short, any federal manager who takes personnel action against a whistleblower for communicating with any member of Congress is not entitled to continue collecting a salary at the expense of American taxpayers. Does it work that way in real life? Ask 98% of whistleblowers who have lost their cases in courts.

Bill Holzerland, Associate Director for Disclosure Policy and FOIA Program Development, testified before Congress, “All in all, I would say no, there is not more transparency.” The DHS is determined to ensure that you find out only what they want you to know. The Agency’s skewed perspective of “What you don’t know can’t hurt you” doesn’t work, because in this scenario the lack of transparency can and does hurt us as a nation. The report concludes that “The extent of the mismanagement of the FOIA function at DHS calls into question the competence and commitment of high-level staff charged with protecting the homeland from serious threats.”

My suggestion would be that the DHS apply to itself the same theory it attempts to sell to every freedom-loving American: “If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with being watched.” Isn’t that right, DHS? Step into the scanner of public opinion and don’t forget to remove your shoes.

# # # #

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.

I am thrilled to announce the addition of a new team member, Luke Ryland, a good friend and a partner whom I have known and worked with since 2006; please welcome Luke and here is his bio:

Luke Ryland is an independent political analyst and online journalist based in Australia. He has been an expert commentator on the Sibel Edmonds case and nuclear black market cases for various progressive radio shows and online publications. Mr. Ryland’s work focuses on the nuclear black market, the Turkish lobby in the US, the energy and geopolitical wars in Central Asia, and the corruption of US Congress. Mr. Ryland has an MBA and a Bachelors degree in Commerce from the University of Melbourne. Visit Luke Ryland’s website.

We recently published Luke Ryland’s expose on FBI documents confirming major criminal investigations of Turkish operatives and their US official friends in Chicago. And here is a link to a recent interview with Mr. Ryland conducted by Scott Horton of AntiWar.Org: Click here.

Starting this coming Wednesday I’ll be on the road for a few weeks, traveling for work and personal matters. I won’t be out of touch. We have three Boiling Frogs interviews, one of which will be posted every other week: Professor Francis Boyle, Naomi Wolf, and Peter Phillips. Meanwhile, Peter B Collins and I will find ways to overcome significant time zone differences and connection difficulties, and continue to conduct additional interviews. We will also have articles and analyses by our contributors, and of course Paul Jamiol’s great editorial cartoons.

Here is my list of noteworthy articles and links from this past week:

Let’s start with our President, since we’ve been keeping tabs on his changes on his promised changes. The following piece is also related to the Obama White House’s 180 degree turn on protection for national security whistleblowers, which we’ve been covering for over a week.

A little secret about Obama’s transparency
Andrew Malcolm, LA Times

The current administration, challenged by the president to be the most open, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush did.

The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.

Transparency and openness were so important to the new president that on his first full day in office, he dispatched a much-publicized memo saying: “All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.”
One of the exemptions allowed to deny Freedom of Information requests has been used by the Obama administration 70,779 times in its first year; the same exemption was used 47,395 times in Bush’s final budget year.

An Associated Press examination of 17 major agencies’ handling of FOIA requests found denials 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50% from the 2008 fiscal year under Bush.
…

We’ve been keeping tabs, and our list of ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Worse-Than-Bush’ points has been expanding continuously. Mr. Obama’s love and usage of State Secrets Privilege, his position against government whistleblowers, his support for illegal domestic wiretapping, his passion for wars and drones, his kind-heartedness towards torturers & other criminals…During his first few months in office, a few of his previously duped supporters were too generous and maybe a bit too naïve to label him ‘Bush-Lite.’ How about now? Is it time to call the President ‘Bush-Dark’? You be the judge; what say you?

……………………………………….

 Karzai talks peace with militant group linked to Taliban
Deb Riechmann, AP

President Hamid Karzai held an unprecedented meeting yesterday with representatives of a major Taliban-linked militant group, boosting his outreach to insurgency leaders to end the eight-year war.

Less certain is whether the talks with the weakened Hizb-i-Islami faction represent a game-changer in the conflict, given its demand to rewrite the Afghan constitution and force a quick exit of foreign forces.

It is the first time that high-ranking representatives of the group, led by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, have traveled to Kabul to discuss peace. The reconciliation offer from Hekmatyar contrasts with his reputation as a ruthless extremist.

Hekmatyar, who is in his 60s, was a major recipient of US military aid during the war against the Soviets in the 1980s but fell out of favor with Washington because of his role in the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal. The US government declared Hekmatyar a “global terrorist’’ in February 2003, saying he participated in and supported terror acts committed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Unless that tag is removed, the designation could complicate any move by the United States to sign off on a deal, even though in recent years Hekmatyar has expressed a willingness to negotiate with the Karzai government. A spokesman for Hekmatyar said the delegation had lunch with Karzai at the presidential palace and planned to meet with him again.

…

Last January our team member duo, Liz Gould and Paul Fitzgerald, wrote an excellent piece on this opium dealing terrorist, who happened to get his grooming from our very own CIA. If you haven’t read the Gould-Fitzgerald piece titled ‘Apocalypse of the American Mind’, click here. Was he ever off the CIA list of ‘operators’? I for one would certainly doubt it.

………………………….

NATO rejects Russia’s demand to destroy Afghan poppy fields
Deutsche Press-Agentur

 Brussels – NATO and Russia clashed on Wednesday over how to tackle the drug problem in Afghanistan, where Western nations have been fighting a Taliban-led insurgency for eight years.

The country is the world’s largest producer of poppy seeds, a key ingredient in the manufacture of heroin. Russia is keen to pursue an aggressive eradication strategy, while Western allies fear that such an approach risks antagonizing the local population, who rely on selling poppy crops to survive.

The different points of view came to a head at a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council attended by the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Agency (FSKN), Victor Ivanov and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

‘Afghan opiates led to the death of 1 million people by overdose in the last 10 years, and that is United Nations data. Is that not a threat to world peace and security?’ Ivanov asked journalists after the meeting.

…

Russians know very well what this is about. After all, they used to be a major player in ‘this’ particular field, and now a bit grumpy because…their share of this pie has been significantly reduced? Certainly it’s not about a million+ deaths caused by ‘overdose;’ of that much I can assure you. So maybe our guys will let their guys have a bit more; like this maybe:

However, he stressed that there was ‘a very positive mood’ in the talks with Ivanov and said that the two sides agreed to boost an already existing programme that involves joint training of Afghan counter-narcotics police.

…

Please bring in your two cents (and more).

…………………………………………
 

In the last few days there have been numerous articles portraying the White House as tough on Israel, and depicting Israel-US relations as severely strained. Coincidentally, two months ago similar articles were written in Turkey on endangered ties – Turkey-Israel. In Turkey this usually happens when elected officials see the need, that is, fulfilling public expectations, albeit cosmetically, to appear ‘a bit’ tough on Israel. While they do that, the business of kissing up to Israel continues behind the scenes; as always.

Here is how badly strained is the relationship between the White House and the Israeli bosses:

Exclusive / Despite row, U.S. and Israel sign massive arms deal
Amos Harel, Haaretz

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week absorbing the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Israel’s defense establishment were in the process of sealing a large arms deal.

According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million.

The aircrafts were manufactured specifically for Israeli needs, and include a large number of systems produced by Israel’s defense industry.

The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.

…

That’s right; that’s how strained things are! And here is another exposé on strained Obama-Israel relations; NOT!

Former Obama Aide New Head of AIPAC
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Israel National News

Lee “Rosy” Rosenberg, a jazz recording industry veteran capitalist who accompanied U.S. President Barack Obama on his campaign trip to Israel two years ago, takes over on Sunday as the new president of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosenberg also served on the president’s national campaign finance committee.

The new AIPAC president hails from Chicago, the home state of President Obama, and also is on first-name terms with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior advisor.

…

My advice? Next time you read bologna articles on the Obama White House being tough on Israel, don’t believe it, go do your own bit of research, and determine for yourself who is the ‘servant’ and who is the ‘boss’ in this (Israel Lobby-US President) relationship;-)

……………………………………

And finally, two well-researched and nicely-written reports by my favorite publication, Asia Times:

‘Strategic depth’ at heart of Taliban arrests
By Shibil Siddiqi, ATimes