David Plouffe's IRGC ATM
As a journalist who has written articles supportive of President Obama, and as a US citizen who voted for Obama in the 2008 general election (I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries), I was aghast to read that David Plouffe, a member of the President's tight inner circle, took a check for $100,000 from a South Africa-based telecommunications company called MTN whose Iranian joint-venture partner, Irancell, has been described by the US Government as "fully owned" by Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC). Attempts to play off Plouffe's Iranian check-cashing spree as an innocent mistake or as a Republican political ploy or as an action that was not strictly prohibited by US law on the precise afternoon in December, 2010 when he went to the bank are void of practical or moral import. I doubt the people who make these lame excuses on Plouffe's behalf could gin themselves up to believe what they are saying even if their jobs depended on it (which they probably do).
It goes without saying that $100,000 is a large amount of money, especially for a DC political operative, and that Plouffe's technical or regulatory experience in the field of global telecommunications isn't worth a plugged nickel to a South Africa-based telecommunications company, because he has no such experience. The fact that Plouffe traveled all the way to Nigeria to collect the loot is a detail from a crappy political farce.
What really stinks here, however, is not simply the fact of the dodgy connection to bad people who actively seek to kill American citizens but the fact that Plouffe took the money in mid-December 2010, and then officially joined the Obama administration weeks later, in January 2011. At the very least, the timing of the Plouffe pay-off makes this a particularly egregious example of the revolving-door DC politics-and-payouts system that Obama pledged to end when he campaigned for office in 2008. The normal procedure for greedheads like David Plouffe is to cash in on their government service AFTER leaving office.
But the timing of Plouffe's payoff suggests that something more sinister should not be discounted. Short of Ali Khamenei writing David Plouffe a personal check -- which would in fact be against the letter of US law -- there is simply no clearer way for the Revolutionary Guard, which has been officially deemed "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" by the US State Department, to slip $100,000 to one of Obama's closest and most trusted advisors, at a moment when internal administration debate about US Iran policy was on high boil. Plouffe, who ran Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, knew full well that he was going into government a few weeks after his $100,000 speech in Nigeria -- and his paymasters knew it, too.
It's hard to imagine a scenario in which either party imagined that the MTN-Plouffe transaction was anything other than what it clearly was -- influence-peddling. The only excuse I can imagine for Plouffe's conduct is that he received winking assurances from someone (his boss?) that the US and Iran were going to do a deal and that, in any case, Iran was not an enemy of the United States, and that statements to the contrary were simply hot air.
More likely, David Plouffe's actions are the products of personal greed and some degree of contempt for the stated aims of US policy, as well as for the lives of American citizens and the lives of the thousands of Iranians, Syrians, Israelis and others who have been murdered by the Revolutionary Guard and its terrorist subsidiaries around the globe. Plouffe's use of an IRGC-owned company as his personal ATM is beneath contempt, and it is hard to imagine the reasoning by which he should remain privy to government secrets or be a party to sensitive policy discussions about Iran.
Reader comments on this item
|Mr. Plouffe viz-a-viz Ms. Abedin [120 words]||Ron Edge||Aug 9, 2012 09:27|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz