Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1876)
Eric Cantor Refuses to Call the Birthers Crazy

Click here to view this media Looks like someone is afraid of the wingnuts in his own party — Cantor Repeatedly Refuses To Call Birtherism Crazy: ‘I Don’t Think It’s Nice To Call Anyone Crazy’ : This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) repeatedly refused host David Gregory’s invitation to call questions about President Obama’s citizenship illegitimate, and he also declined to call such rhetoric “crazy,” saying “I don’t think it’s nice to call anyone crazy, ok?” After several prompts from Gregory, Cantor eventually said he believes the president “is a citizen of the United States”: GREGORY: This is a leadership moment here. There are elements of this country who question the president’s citizenship, who think that his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk? CANTOR: [laughs] David, you know, a lot of that has been an issue sort of generated by not only the media but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that and they want us to focus — GREGORY: Is somebody who brings that up engaging in crazy talk? CANTOR: David I don’t think it’s nice to call anyone crazy, OK? GREGORY: Alright. Is it a legitimate or illegitimate issue? CANTOR: I don’t think it’s an issue that we need to address at all. I think we need to focus on trying – GREGORY: His citizenship should never be questioned in your judgment, is that what you’re saying? CANTOR: It’s not an issue that even needs to be on the policymaking table right now. GREGORY: Because it’s illegitimate? Why won’t you just call it what it is? Because I feel like there are a lot of Republican leaders who don’t want to go as far as to criticize those who – CANTOR: I think the president is a citizen of the United States. As Think Progress noted, it’s not just these tea partiers spouting this birther nonsense, but members of the House of Representatives as well. His reluctance to lead on this matter is more than just unfortunate, it’s shameful.

Continue reading …
Schieffer Dismisses ObamaCare Repeal as ‘Waste of Time,’ Amanpour Baffled by Tea Party: ‘What on Earth Do They Mean By That?’

Two signs Sunday morning of how the Washington press corps are dismissive, disdainful and befuddled by the Tea Party. On This Week , Christiane Amanpour fretted that though the New York Times has discredited the Tea Party’s rationale (“a new report today in the New York Times , they say that in fact TARP will cost maybe $28 billion to the taxpayer, instead of the $700 billion”), she told Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas “you yourself have been facing, even though you’re a reliable conservative, Tea Party competition in Texas. Are they outflanking you?” Amanpour empathized that Tea Party activists “said that you personally signify everything that the Tea Party is fighting.” A flummoxed Amanpour wondered: “What on earth do they mean by that?” Over on CBS's Face the Nation , Bob Schieffer, echoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asked Senator John McCain about a Senate vote to repeal ObamaCare: “Do you think…that that's a waste of time, that the time in the Senate could be better spent working on something that has a chance of passing?” Instead of then pressing Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer about what Democrats have to fear about such a vote if they have the votes to defeat it, Schieffer simply cued him up with “what will be the Democratic response?” That allowed Schumer to expound on how they’ll force Republicans to reject supposedly popular elements of it. From the January 23 Face the Nation: BOB SCHIEFFER: This morning on Meet the Press, Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he is definitely going to try to force a vote on repealing health care reform, even though as most people, and I'm sure you would agree, there is no chance that that's going to pass in the Senate. Do you think Senator McCain that that's a waste of time, that the time in the Senate could be better spent working on something that has a chance of passing? JOHN McCAIN: One thing about the Senate, it is not the most efficient organization and I don't think we would be wasting – we need to have a vote on it because we promised the people we would… SCHIEFFER TO SCHUMER: He [McCain] agreed, you heard him, with what Mitch McConnell said also this morning. There needs to be a vote on repealing health care. If the Republicans do force a vote — and I would guess that about the only way they can get this done is just to add it on as an amendment to some other legislation — that seems most likely to me. But if they do that, Senator Schumer, what will be the Democratic response? From ABC’s This Week , segment with retiring Senators Hutchison, Kent Conrad and Joe Lieberman: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Let me turn to you, Senator Hutchison. First of all, in a new report today in the New York Times , they say that in fact TARP will cost maybe $28 billion to the taxpayer, instead of the $700 billion. They say that bailing out the auto industry will cost maybe, in the end, about $15 billion rather than the many tens of billions that were put in. What about you? You yourself have been facing, even though you’re a reliable conservative, Tea Party competition in Texas. Are they outflanking you? HUTCHISON: You know, I think the Tea Party has done a good thing in awakening America to the problems that we are facing and saying, we can do something about it. And I appreciate that. I think that if I had run, I would have won. It would have been a tough race, for sure. But I think I would have won because I think my record is good. And it is to be effective and get things done. But I do think there is such a strong feeling that America has not been going in the right direction. And I think people are looking for a change. That's not why I didn't run. It was a personal decision for me. I commute every week. I have two young children and the time was right for me. I'm excited about a new future and excited about turning it over to someone else, but I think that the Tea Party, all in all, has done a good thing for America. AMANPOUR: And yet they say that, as I said you're a reliable conservative by all indicators, they said that you personally signify everything that the Tea Party is fighting. What on earth do they mean by that? Particularly when it comes to issues such as spending cuts and the things that everybody’s talking about right now. HUTCHISON: Well, I think that's a misrepresentation of my record. I am a reliable conservative. There are some people who say that, of course. I mean I read the blogs and it gets kind of depressing, frankly, to read those blogs. But all in all, I have support of Tea Party people. I do have the support of many of the leaders of the Tea Oarty. And I don't think there is a Tea Party spokesman that speaks for everyone. But I have a good relationship with the Tea Party. And yes, there are people that think that maybe I fought too hard for Texas in spending areas. But I think I'm elected to support my state. And I have supported every spending cut, every overall spending cut. And I think we're going to have to be doing a lot more of that in the next few weeks, because we all agree — and I didn't support the stimulus. So I think that was a — way too much spending. But we all agree now, it must be cut. — Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Continue reading …
Krugman: The Country Is Not A Corporation, And Layoffs Are Not A Success

Honestly, there are so few nuggets of genuine wisdom in Washington that watching the Sunday talk-show hackery is a form of psychological torture. If only I could afford to throw a brick through my television! The only one who ever seems to notice the real stories behind the stage sets and dramatic speeches is Krugman, and no one listens to him but us DFHs. Instead, we can sit back and listen to the Villagers explain that attacking the deficit is the biggest priority, that Obama has been governing from the left and not the center-right, and thank God he’s back to the “center” (which is actually the right), and that the country voted for the Republicans because they wanted even more right-wing policies, not because they were frustrated by an administration who seemed to put their needs last. Are we all clear now? Here’s the roundtable discussion from This Week with Christiane Amanpour: AMANPOUR: That was President Obama delivering last year’s State of the Union address. Welcome back. Joined again by our roundtable. George, I know that you have a great, great regard for watching the State of the Union on television. WILL: A, they’re overrated. The next morning, the country is still a complex continental country with muscular interests (ph) and politics is its own momentum. Between Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson, no one delivered this in person. They sent their report to Congress in writing. But now we’ve turned this into this panorama in which — in an interminable speech, every president, regardless of party, tries to stroke every erogenous zone in electorate. AMANPOUR: Oh, my goodness. WILL: And it becomes a political pep rally, to use the phrase of Chief Justice Roberts last year. If it’s going to be a pep rally, with the president’s supporters or whatever party standing up and braying approval, and histrionic pouting on the part of the other, then it’s no place for the judiciary, it’s no place for the uniformed military, and it’s no place for non-adolescent legislators. BRAZILE: It’s a once-a-year opportunity to talk to the American people to remind us who we are and where we’re going. This is an opportunity for the president to use scripture to give us a vision, because the Bible says, without a vision, a people will perish, and we didn’t have that over the last… (CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: So what is the vision? Because now or never. BRAZILE: It’s about jobs. It’s about rebuilding America, making America competitive and strong again, and taking care of all our issues, both on the domestic front, as well as international. DOWD: To me, the State of the Union — and I’ll agree in part with George and disagree in part with George on this — they don’t affect the American public. If you look at like approval numbers going into State of the Unions over the last 35 years and coming out, they do not move the numbers. Even Ronald Reagan, who was lauded as one of the best communicators in the history of this country, never moved the American public. Barack Obama, another great speaker, did very well in Tucson. In last year’s State of the Union, didn’t move the numbers. But what is important I think in this is for him to continue to connect the dots with the audience in the Capitol and the people that surround people in the Capitol that he is going to keep doing what he’s been doing since Election Day. It’s not the event in itself that matters, but it’s how — the cumulative effect of it. And if he continues to, one, talk about jobs and the economy, and then tie to it an increase in making our discourse better and talking to each other across party lines, if he does those two things, he will continue to rise in the polls. AMANPOUR: There’s been some preview of what he’s going to say. What does he need to say to inspire confidence in the economy? KRUGMAN: Oh, I don’t think there’s anything much he can do that will inspire confidence. I mean, what he’s doing in the lead in is, is using this competitiveness, which is actually a tired old buzzword. But it’s — what he appears to be doing is signaling that he’s not going to go for the full-out Republican agenda of slashing spending. He’s actually going to make a case for more public investment. And we’re just — you know, I think the main thing right now is what we’re not hearing. We’re not hearing him signing on to cuts in Social Security, which was something that was being floated for a while. But, you know, and actually the whole thing — that is — political event, actually, doesn’t matter. But it’s an event that forces the president to signal what he’s — where he’s going. AMANPOUR: George, you talked about the braying and the pouting. And, obviously, there’s been a huge amount of — of — of attention to the seating plan. Do you think the seating plan, which Democrats sit next to which Republican, and the new tone of civility is going to make a difference, going to last? WILL: Well, if it, again, drains the pep rally aspect out of it, this will be fine. But as Matt says, the whole event does not matter. AMANPOUR: Expect that… KRUGMAN: I’ve got to say… AMANPOUR: OK. KRUGMAN: … the juvenility of U.S. politics in this past year or so has just been amazing. And — and, you know, I think about the fact that so much of this talk about Obama having an anti-business agenda has been just because, “Well, he doesn’t treat us with enough respect.” I never thought that “Ma, he’s looking at me funny” would be a political rallying cry. AMANPOUR: Well, when you say that — but, look, and I keep repeating this, because I find it extraordinary, given the polarization of the debate. The vast majority of the American people say that they want — the vast majority, Democrats and Republicans, up to 83 percent, that they want the president and the White House and the Congress to work together on these big issues. Is that — will they heed the voice of the people? DOWD: Well, it’s interesting, Christiane, because the American public’s been sending that signal for many years in a row. They sent it during Clinton’s presidency… AMANPOUR: So why doesn’t anybody listen? DOWD: They said it — because it’s much easier in the polarized nature of a lot of the — of Congress and how it operates and the media, which sort of has a tendency to cede it to the people on the far left and the far right that can yell at each other. I do think it’s a good thing that maybe some of them are going to sit together, though it kind of reminds me of my daughter’s second-grade class. She doesn’t like somebody this; we’re going to seat them together and maybe they’re going to get along. But in the end, I think it’s a good step. BRAZILE: Look, senators represent their states, representatives their districts. The president represents the entire country. An — this is an opportunity to talk above the heads of the politicians to the American people to give them some confidence about the future. AMANPOUR: Thank you all very much. We’re out of time. And the roundtable will continue in the green room at abcnews.com/thisweek, where you can also find our fact checks in conjunction with PolitiFact.

Continue reading …
Howard Fineman Thinks President Obama Needs to Tell Seniors to Get Ready for Some Tough Love on Social Security in SOTU Address

Click here to view this media I’m not sure what Howard Fineman has been smoking, but I’m pretty well disgusted with the man I used to like as one of Al Franken’s regulars on his radio show on Air America after hearing this nonsense out of him on Chris Matthews’ weekend show on NBC. Hey Howard, here’s a proposal for you. How about we ask the rich to pay their fair share in taxes instead of telling seniors on fixed incomes that they haven’t sacrificed enough for their country? Or pretending that ending Social Security benefits for upper earners and means testing it would do nothing but turn Social Security into another welfare program instead of an insurance program? And while we’re at it, quit pretending Social Security is doing anything to add to our deficit problem when it’s not. If there’s one thing I hope President Obama does during his State of the Union address, it is to not listen to Howard Fineman or his fellow Villagers spouting similar nonsense. The only people who have not been asked to sacrifice in this country are the rich and acting like there’s some abundance of rich seniors feeding off of the government trough at the expense of their grandchildren is just shameless. I’m really disgusted and disappointed with Howard for going there. He should know better. FINEMAN: If he doesn’t make a double feature a single unified theme, then he will have failed. And what he’s got to say, bluntly is some people are going to have to sacrifice in order that this next generation can have it’s Sputnik moment and to over simplify, but only slightly, better off, that is well to do older people, senior citizens are going to have to pay more and get less from government, so that this younger generation can meet the challenges of the future. He’s got to say that, which means he’s got to mention Social Security—after all it was part of his own budget committee… MATTHEWS: Howard, put that against the filter of what we all know about politics. FINEMAN: Right. MATTHEWS: It’s the older person with more time on their hands who votes relentlessly… FINEMAN: That’s true. MATTHEWS: …who votes their interests, their pocket book interests, their retirement interests. Will they give way? FINEMAN: Well he’s got to speak to them. I think that’s a very good point Chris and while Republicans are one part of his audience—they’re going to be sitting there skeptically saying “how much are you cutting, how much are you cutting”, he’s also going to talk to seniors, the better off people, people who’ve done well in the last fifteen, twenty years and say look, if you want your children and grandchildren to be as optimistic as you were when you were a kid and to have the opportunities in terms of education and the American life that you had, then we’ve all got to pull together.

Continue reading …
Special Edition of Notable Quotables: ‘Conservatives in the Crosshairs’

Every two weeks, the Media Research Center compiles the most outrageous liberal media quotes for our Notable Quotables newsletter. For the issue dated Monday, January 24, it’s a special edition, “ Conservatives in the Crosshairs ,” documenting the smarmy attempt by the liberal media to link conservatives — especially Sarah Palin, talk radio and the Tea Party — to the horrific shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords that left six others dead. After the jump, you'll find some of the choicer quotes we’ve uncovered, including three video clips. The full issue will be available at www.MRC.org by 9am Monday: First Impulse: Let’s Blame Conservatives Arizona Daily Star columnist/cartoonist David Fitzsimmons: “I must tell you as a columnist who has covered politics in this state, it was inevitable, from my perspective.” Anchor Martin Savidge: “Why do you say that?” Fitzsimmons: “Because the right in Arizona, and I’m speaking very broadly, has been stoking the fires of a heated anger and rage successfully in this state….The politics of the state does tend to be far to the right. I would say even rabid right.” — Exchange at about 2:30pm ET during CNN’s live coverage of the Giffords shooting, January 8. Fitzsimmons later conceded his remarks were “inappropriate.” “Remember, this is the deepest fear that was in the back of everybody’s mind going through the health care debate. A lot of members were threatened. Congresswoman Giffords’ windows at her district office were broken….There is [sic] a lot of fringe groups that were very upset with the health care law, felt that the federal government was overstepping its bounds, and that was in — within everyone’s mind. It looks sadly like it’s come to fruition today.” — NBC/MSNBC correspondent Luke Russert during MSNBC live coverage at about 3:30pm ET January 8. “We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before….Her father says that ‘the whole Tea Party’ was her enemy. And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous ‘crosshairs’ list. Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing….Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.” — New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in a 3:22pm ET January 8 blog posting , less than two hours after news broke of Giffords’ shooting.

Continue reading …

The Palestine Papers

No Comment
The Palestine Papers

Thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records spanning an entire decade of peace negotiations have been given to The Guardian. The new documents show a disagreeable Israel and surprising concessions by the Palestinians. —JCL The Guardian: The biggest leak of confidential documents in the history of the Middle East conflict has revealed that Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to accept Israel’s annexation of all but one of the settlements built illegally in occupied East Jerusalem. This unprecedented proposal was one of a string of concessions that will cause shockwaves among Palestinians and in the wider Arab world. A cache of thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records covering more than a decade of negotiations with Israel and the US has been obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian. The papers provide an extraordinary and vivid insight into the disintegration of the 20-year peace process, which is now regarded as all but dead. Read more Related Entries January 23, 2011 Flotilla Raid Deemed Legal January 18, 2011 Tunisian Revolution Shakes, Inspires Middle East

Continue reading …
One Commodity to Rule Them All: Oil

enlarge On the global stage, morality only stretches as far as not to disturb the operations of oil companies in different regions. A recently-released Wikileaks cable reveals Shell Oil’s frustration at sanctions on Iran, and how it feels constrained as a result. Written in 2006 from The Hague embassy to Washington DC with copies to key embassies around the world, it conveys Shell’s frustration at UN sanctions on Iran and how it constrains their business operations in that country, and exposes their influence at watering down those sanctions in order to continue their operations in the region. MFA’s Roosegaarde Bisschop responded with three main points on Iran. First, he said MFA supports a UNSC resolution with teeth, meaning reversible sanctions targeted against the assets and travel of individuals associated with Iran’s nuclear program. Iran had crossed the line. The Dutch, he said, fully support the P5 discussions, as part of a dialog aimed at a diplomatic solution. Harsher measures — such as omnibus sanctions or those complicating Shell operations — are not on the table and would be very difficult to get through the UN, he said. The cable goes on to discuss Shell’s views on the US government’s push for hard-line sanctions on Iran: Crocker expressed concern about USG efforts to discourage investment in Iran’s energy sector. In the short run, he said, the volume of oil produced in Iran will remain unchanged, whether or not Shell participates in Iran oil projects. This is because phase I oil extraction — a period that normally lasts 10 years — is not tricky, and the Iranians and Chinese have the requisite technology to proceed on their own. It is from the second phase onward, Crocker added, where the exclusion of foreign oil companies will have an impact. Since this is beyond 2020, it might make life difficult for ordinary Iranians at a time when the political environment hopefully may be more friendly toward the west, Crocker said. That said, he added that Shell views its relationship with the USG as important and that the company is very conscious of how its actions are perceived. I’d just like to be able to say I don’t give a rat’s ass about whether Shell has a tough time because the US is less reliant on foreign oil. In fact, I’d like to not use oil at all, because the one thing that keeps getting driven home to me over and over and over again in these cables is how utterly dependent every aspect of diplomacy is on oil extraction. It’s obscene. From another cable on the same topic, this time in January, 2009 : The Dutch government agrees that doing business with Iran poses risks for Dutch companies, and it will continue to discourage new investments there. Shell has again pushed back its investment decision on the Persian LNG project, this time until late 2010. However, Shell’s go-slow approach in Iran belies seething frustration at the perceived ineffectiveness of sanctions against Iran. The company sees Iran’s nuclear activities continuing while Chinese and other firms seal long-term energy deals in Iran at the expense of Western energy security interests. Moving from The Netherlands to Brazil, a cable from June, 2008 which concludes with this: Brazil’s Ministry of Mines and Energy, regulators, and US energy companies have suggested that it could instead be within this period for the USG to intervene. Indeed, Petrobras’ interest in consolidating deep-sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and vertical integration in the US market could open an important window of opportunity for the USG. Furthermore, ANP has expressed interest in learning more about US small and medium sized energy companies operating in US states to develop a similar capacity in Brazil. They have, in fact, asked for USG assistance to travel to the US to meet with and further learn about this important part of the energy equation. Clearly, Brazil’s energy sector offers new partnerships, opportunities, and increased energy security for the US. As Brazil begins to increase exploration of its newfound “pre-salt” reserves that many believe could be larger than the finds in the North Sea, the US could potentially capitalize on these new technologies to develop our own offshore exploration efforts. Early engagement may be crucial to ensuring that US firms will have opportunities in this market. On its face, that cable seems fairly giddy and innocuous. But US relations with Brazil in 2008 were not all sweetness and light. Brazil was (and is) looking for a place on the global stage , and the US has a differing view of their stability and importance. That is, until the big oil find. Oil takes center stage with regard to Nigeria in 2009 when Shell oil executives brief the US ambassador on the state of Nigerian security and politics. Who knew oil companies were also intelligence officers? Moving on to Russia, we have BP profiting heavily from investments in Gazprom and Rosneft, the former state-owned oil companies which were privatized…sort of. From a 2008 cable: Peattie told the Ambassador that BP plans to be in Russia “for the next 50 years” and is thinking of the long-run in terms of its investments. He said TNK-BP is a large and important part of BP’s presence but might not be the main vehicle for BP going forward. In that regard, he noted that BP had invested $8 billion in TNK-BP but had already realized $9 billion in profits. Instead, he cited BP’s growing ties with Rosneft, in which it has a one percent stake, as the potential long-term foundation of BP’s involvement in Russia. Peattie said to that end, BP was increasing its direct presence in Russia. These are only a few examples. There are many more. If no other message comes out of these cables, let this one resonate: The quest for oil drives everything from diplomacy to sanctions. It overrides human rights, common sense, and ideological differences. Now take the energy Czars in this country: The Kochs, the Unocals, et al, and combine that with their strategy to unite theology and oil while vigorously denying climate change. In his book American Theocracy , Kevin Phillips writes that there are three threats that leave the US vulnerable: …three principal U.S. global vulnerabilities have emerged: radical religion, costly and precarious dependence on oil, and a cult of borrowing money (ballooning public and private debt). The debacle in Iraq and the Middle East-centered “war on terror,” far from representing a separate category, are firmly rooted in radical and fundamentalist religion and the roiling affect of Western (especially Anglo-American) pursuit of oil and military domination in the Middle East. This is what makes the right wing so toxic to this country, and why it’s so important to unite in resolve not to give them any more power than they’ve already taken. If we can unify around that message, we might be able to drive back the destruction they’ll surely bring.

Continue reading …

Football Open Thread

No Comment
Football Open Thread

enlarge Credit: Crooks and Liars Are you ready for some football!?! Are you ready for some Midwestern, below-freezing, possible-snow football? Kickoff for Bears vs. Packers, in Chicago, is at 3 Eastern / 12 Pacific. Steelers vs. Jets, in Pittsburgh, kicks off at 6:30 Eastern / 3:30 Pacific. Open football thread below….

Continue reading …
Restive Egypt Looks Over Its Shoulder

The uprising that sacked Tunisia’s government is continuing to echo through the region, with Egypt, especially, looking over its shoulder and fearing instability that could scare off foreign investors. —JCL Associated Press via The Guardian: An Egyptian government minister warned on Sunday that investors are growing concerned about Egypt’s stability over fears the revolt in Tunisia could spur unrest elsewhere in North Africa and the Middle East. The stunning protests in Tunisia, which brought down that country’s leader after 23 years of repressive rule, have reverberated around the region, particularly in Egypt, where many activists are similarly angry with their longtime president. In a first test of whether the events could spark serious street protests in Egypt, activists and opposition groups are organizing a day of demonstrations in Cairo and Alexandria on Tuesday to coincide with a holiday honoring Egypt’s feared police and security apparatus. Read more Related Entries January 23, 2011 Flotilla Raid Deemed Legal January 18, 2011 Tunisian Revolution Shakes, Inspires Middle East

Continue reading …
Flotilla Raid Deemed Legal

In a result sure to spark intense debate, Israel’s attack on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last May has been declared by a government commission to be a legal use of force for self-defense. Israeli commandos killed nine activists attempting to break the blockade on the impoverished Gaza Strip. —JCL The Guardian: Israel acted within international law and its soldiers opened fire in self-defence during a deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla of aid ships last May that prompted worldwide protests, a government-appointed commission concluded today. The 280-page report of the Turkel Commission broadly endorsed the Israeli military and government versions of events on 31 May. Witnesses on board the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, on which nine Turkish activists were killed, vigorously contested the Israeli accounts. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey whose relations with Israel reached breaking point after the raid, today rejected the conclusions of the commission, saying it had “no value or credibility”. Read more Related Entries January 23, 2011 Flotilla Raid Deemed Legal January 18, 2011 Tunisian Revolution Shakes, Inspires Middle East

Continue reading …