Now this is just getting silly. The Obama White House is gearing up for a Supreme Court case in which it will defend its refusal to list “Jerusalem, Israel” on the passports of Americans born in the Israeli capital. As part of its preparations the administration recently scrubbed all the captions on a White House photo gallery of Vice President Biden in the city, changing “Jerusalem, Israel” to “Jerusalem.” The optics of methodically erasing the word “Israel” from the White House webpage caused a predictable uproar.

Those who make it their business to rationalize White House hostility toward Israel were relieved, then, when the Washington Jewish Week’s Adam Kredo published an article claiming that the Bush administration had enforced an identical policy. Kredo cited a “search of the Bush White House’s archives” and photos of Laura Bush touring the Western Wall to conclude that the Bush White House webpage “never explicitly labeled [Jerusalem] as part of Israel.” Though he was otherwise unsparing in criticizing the White House’s “horrible, simply ridiculous… photo mistake,” Obama’s defenders latched on to his article anyway. The NJDC and J Street found particularly grating and obnoxious ways to pass along the article. You should read them because they’re about to become deeply embarrassing.

Elliot Abrams responded in a quote he gave to Jennifer Rubin, forcefully insisting that Kredo was “just wrong” and that the Bush White House “did not have a hard and fast rule that prohibited referring to Jerusalem” as part of Israel in documents and captions.

Basic Google searches are enough to show that Abrams is right and Obama’s defenders are flat wrong.

Sometimes Bush-era White House photos explicitly identified Jerusalem as being in Israel and sometimes they didn’t, just like sometimes they explicitly identified Tel Aviv as being in Israel and sometimes they didn’t. A naive “Jerusalem, Israel” Google search on the Bush White House archives is sufficient to turn up this 2002 photo of Vice President Cheney captioned as “a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel.” It also turns up this photo labeled “Mrs. Laura Bush visits the Western Wall Tunnels… in Jerusalem, Israel.” That’s from the exact, precise, identical tour that Kredo linked to in order to “hammer home the point” that the Bush administration “never explicitly labeled [Jerusalem] as part of Israel.”

Getting beyond photo captions, Bush-era documents show that the previous White House was indeed able to correctly identify the city of Jerusalem as being inside the state of Israel. The record shows that the President even acknowledged that the Jerusalem consulate – the same one that won’t issue passports referencing “Jerusalem, Israel” – was located in Jerusalem, Israel. Bush’s statement nominating Jeffrey Feltman to be ambassador to Lebanon, for instance, explicitly described Feltman’s previous position as “Deputy Principal Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem, Israel.”

It gets worse for Obama’s defenders, though, than merely being demonstrably wrong. It turns out that while they were insisting that the Bush administration consistently refused to reference “Jerusalem, Israel,” the Obama State Department was busy scrubbing documents in which Bush administration referenced “Jerusalem, Israel.” Straight down the memory hole. That’s kind of amazing when you pause and think about it, no?

The “Jerusalem, Israel” captions and statements from the Bush-era White House are digitally archived and frozen, and so beyond the administration’s reach. But Bush-era State Department reports are stored on the Obama State Department’s servers. Two old documents in particular – the State Department’s FY 2002 and FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Reports – come up quickly in searches. When they were originally written they both had appendices identifying the location of the Jerusalem consulate as “Jerusalem, Israel.” Some time in the last two weeks that location was changed to “Jerusalem.” Whoever made the changes even went back and scrubbed the old “hard copy” PDFs. You can do the compare and contrast yourself. Click on these links for scrubbed versions of FY 2002 HTML, FY 2003 HTML, FY 2002 PDF, FY 2003 PDF, and on these links for cached original versions of FY 2002 HTML, FY 2003 HTML, FY 2002 PDF, FY 2003 PDF.

The Bush White House was simply not as hostile to Israel as the Obama administration. It simply did not engage in the same consistent, systematic efforts to undermine Israel’s diplomatic positions. Efforts to rewrite history, which at this point have become quite literal, won’t change that basic fact. Those who continue to grasp for pretexts to believe otherwise – and you really should go back to see the sneering smugness with which the NJDC and J Street approached this controversy – will continue to get embarrassed. Facts are not only stubborn things but, in a digital age, fairly easy for anyone to find.

Obama Re-Writes History on Bush and Jerusalem

Must-Reads from Magazine

American Society

The Torment of Ajit Pai

The radicals become fanatics.

Noah Rothman / Jan. 5, 2018

Ajit Pai — AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File

At some point predating Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency, political activism evolved from a civic exercise into a lifestyle. For the initiated, traditional forms of political organizing are too passive. In the activists’ minds, the objects of their fixations represent an existential threat, and there aren’t many behaviors that are proscribed in a fight for survival. For the fanatical opposition to Donald Trump, in particular, even the most mundane aspects of governance are inflated into a struggle for our very way of life. This is how opposition to an arcane, bureaucratic decision by the Federal Communications Commission transformed from a liberal cause into an obsession. This is also how the FCC’s chairman, Ajit Pai, became the subject of almost daily persecution.

The source of great consternation on the left is the FCC’s decision to scrap an Obama-era rule implemented in 2015 deemed “net neutrality.” This complicated regulatory structure determines who controls broadband—as John Podhoretz described it, the “pipe” through which online content is delivered to individual consumers. The end of net neutrality will allow Internet service providers to do whatever they want with their “pipe,” even privilege the content of providers that they own or support. That is precisely what independent content providers fear, and that’s why they oppose the repeal of this law. Proponents of the FCC’s move believe those fears are not well supported; the marketplace will ensure that service providers are ultimately unable to block access to popular content or services, even if that is their inclination. We’re about to find out who is right.

This supervisory guideline has been elevated into a “life-or-death” struggle by those who favor net neutrality. Accordingly, Pai, a proponent of deregulating the communications marketplace to spur innovation or to simply comply with the law (an obstacle the Obama-era FCC regularly circumvented), has been the target of a campaign of harassment that amounts to a national scandal.

The so-called “Resistance” latched onto the net-neutrality issue early in the Trump presidency and went about expressing their opposition to the repeal of this regulation in the most contemptible fashion imaginable. HBO host John Oliver was among the first figures of mainstream cultural relevance to organize a campaign against this regulation, which he dubbed “Go FCC Yourself.” He encouraged his followers to bombard the FCC’s website with comments supporting the regulation, and that is precisely what they did. Those comments were peppered with claims that Pai was a pedophile, a “dirty, sneaky Indian” who should self-deport, and reminders that anonymous online hordes maintain the “power to murder Ajit Pai and his family.” Oliver was eventually compelled to release a video urging his followers to dial back the racism and death threats.

This episode would prove to be just the beginning of Pai’s ordeal. By May of last year, Pai’s tormentors began a campaign to ensure that the FCC chairman could enjoy no peace—not even in his own home. “Resistance” groups began distributing fliers and door hangers around Pai’s Arlington, Virginia neighborhood, featuring a black-and-white photo of Pai with his vital stats (height, weight, age, and professional background) and accusing him of selling the Internet out to corporations. “Have you seen this man?” the fliers read.

These demonstrators didn’t stop there. They began organizing “vigils” in Pai’s driveway—a tactic that net neutrality activists deployed in 2014 against then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler. They “come up to our front windows and take photographs of the inside of the house,” Pai told the Wall Street Journal. “My kids are 5 and 3. It’s not pleasant.”

“Is this really the world you want Annabelle and Alexander to inherit,” read a hand-made sign affixed to a lamppost outside Pai’s residence in November, making a point to emphasize the names of Pai’s two children. “They will come to know the truth: Dad murdered democracy in cold blood,” read another. The Pai family’s doorbell reportedly rang every half hour, according to National Journal’s Brendan Bordelon, with pizza deliveries that they had not ordered. “It was a little nerve-racking, especially for my wife who’s not involved in this space,” Pai told Fox News Channel. “Families,” he continued, “should remain out of it and stop harassing us at our homes.”

But it didn’t stop, and the threats to Pai’s safety have only become more credible. In December, ahead of the commission’s vote to formally nix the controversial 2015 regulation, a specific bomb threat forced the FCC to halt proceedings and clear the building. This week, Pai was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show after receiving credible death threats. A Recode reporter confirmed that the organization that hosts the annual gathering of business and technology experts had also been “subject to vicious and direct attacks and threats” for even daring to associate with the FCC chairman.

Pai’s treatment is an outrage and a disgrace. It would be a national scandal in the press but for the fact that so many of the country’s opinion-makers and media professionals agree with the activists’ cause, if not their methods. Pai’s record is that of a competent steward of the FCC, and he easily won a second term at his post in October with the support of four Democratic senators. What’s more, he has demonstrated both independence and a commitment to free and unfettered expression, going so far as to scold Donald Trump for suggesting that his regulatory organ should yank the licenses of broadcasters with which the president disagreed.

For all his autonomy, Pai and his family have nevertheless endured a campaign of stalking and intimidation for merely serving the country in his capacity as FCC chairman. This sorry display is unbecoming of a mature republic. The activist left is incubating the kind of potentially violent radicalism that they cannot control. If Democrats truly fret for the norms of civil conduct that are supposedly being lost in the Trump era, they might devote some attention to their own supporters.

filed under:ajit pai fcc net neutrality

Economy

A Year of Jobs

Employment is strong.

JOHN STEELE GORDON / Jan. 5, 2018

The December jobs report, out this morning, reported 148,000 new jobs in December while the unemployment rate stayed steady at 4.1 percent. The number of new jobs was below expectations (184,000 jobs) and below both October’s number (revised to 211,000) and November’s (revised to 252,000).

filed under:Donald Trump economy unemployment

Foreign Affairs

The Extreme Danger of an Irrelevant President

Who is in charge here?

Noah Rothman / Jan. 4, 2018

When it comes to the conduct of American foreign affairs, the Trump administration has recently been performing competently—even admirably. That comes as a surprise to many observers because the administration’s successes are a direct result of the president’s failure to govern as he campaigned. Given the discrepancies between how the president talks about foreign affairs and how his administration conducts itself abroad, foreign governments could be forgiven for thinking that the president did not have the final word on how U.S. pursues its interests—or even what those interests are. That could put the United States and the world in a uniquely parlous place.

To illustrate the discrepancies between the president’s approach to a foreign crisis and the administration he supposedly manages, look toward the Korean Peninsula.

The contradictions between what Trump says and how his government behaves were already evident when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued a direct appeal to North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un. While on a September visit to Beijing, Tillerson admitted that the Trump administration was “probing” the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for an opening that could lead to talks between the two nations and had opened several lines of communications to Pyongyang. Upon reading the news, the president tweeted that his secretary of state was “wasting his time” issuing overtures to the Kim regime. “Save your energy, Rex,” Trump added, “we’ll do what has to be done.”

Perhaps the administration was playing the good-cop-bad-cop game with Pyongyang? If so, Tillerson didn’t get the memo. In December, the secretary of state again approached the Kim regime. “We are ready to have the first meeting without precondition,” Tillerson said of his North Korean counterparts. “Let’s just meet, and we can talk about the weather if you want.” But within hours, a National Security Council source contradicted the secretary of state, insisting that the DPRK must suspend all missile and nuclear tests for a significant period before there could be any dialogue. Tillerson soon withdrew his offer of condition-free talks.

In Kim’s New Year’s Day address, the North Korean despot issued a perfunctory bleat of bellicosity, declaring his nuclear arsenal functional and capable of reaching the entirety of the United States. But in a more consequential part of that speech, Kim entertained the prospect of bilateral talks with the South Korean government. Donald Trump responded to this speech by disregarding its most substantial elements and instead tweeted cavalierly about the prospect of a thermonuclear exchange with the rogue state. South Korea, by contrast, ignored the threat and responded warmly to the overture.

The following day, the North Korean government accepted contact with the South Korean government on a hotline that had been dead for two years and indicated that further communications were forthcoming. “[D]oes anybody really believe that talks and dialogue would be going on between North and South Korea right now if I wasn’t firm,” Trump tweeted, apparently missing the fact that Pyongyang’s objective has always been to shut the United States out of the diplomatic process on the peninsula. And in a significant departure from Trump’s alleged firmness, Washington and Seoul announced on Thursday their intention to halt all military exercise during the forthcoming Olympic Games in South Korea—a small but important concession to Pyongyang that should facilitate further thawing on the Peninsula.

There will always be those who suggest that Donald Trump is playing a masterful game, keeping all his opponents off balance. More likely, the Trump administration is of multiple minds on many subjects and is so poorly staffed at the consular level that the United States is diplomatically rudderless. An adversarial power is justified in concluding that Trump is not the last word when it comes to American foreign policy, and that could be extremely dangerous. If Trump comes to be seen as a man who can be ignored in favor of other voices or signals from elsewhere within the administration, it could lead foreign governments to take Trump’s statements for granted.

That presumption could lead a foreign power to miscalculate; after all, miscalculations are only miscalculations in hindsight. An adversarial power that executes a gambit on the world stage that does not elicit a response from the United States hasn’t miscalculated at all. If, however, Russia, or China, or Iran, or another revisionist powers were to conclude that Trump could be ignored and accidentally pushed him to a point at which he feels compelled to respond, that could trigger a crisis from which no one has a face-saving way out; and those have the potential to spiral out of control.

As erratic as this president may be, and despite the sighs of relief that the “generals” like James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly are largely in command of American foreign affairs, it is terribly dangerous if the United States fails to speak with one voice. That condition leads to confusion; confusion leads to mistakes; and mistakes lead to confrontation—even the kind that no one wants. If Trump is going to outsource the role of the president to his subordinates, he’s better off keeping quiet. Ambiguity about who is really in control of American affairs could get people killed.

filed under:Donald Trump North Korea rex tillerson

Podcasts

Bannonism Goes Bust

Podcast: Steve Bannon's Waterloo.

Noah Rothman / Jan. 4, 2018

In the second COMMENTARY Magazine podcast of the week, the hosts discuss Steve Bannon by the avatar of his movement: Donald Trump. Clearly, the damaging quotes Bannon provided to the journalist Michael Wolff are worth taking seriously, even if the rest of the book is dubious. Finally, the hosts dive into the evolution of the Trump administration from populism to conventional Republicanism, and how that impacts the immediate future.

filed under:commentary podcast Donald Trump steve bannon

Economy

Trump Unleashes the Economy

Will voters notice?

JOHN STEELE GORDON / Jan. 4, 2018

The New York Times had a startling headline in the print edition this week, above the fold and in the left-hand column no less: “With Red Tape Losing Its Grip, Firms Ante Up.” The gist of the story is in the first two paragraphs:

A wave of optimism has swept over American business leaders, and it is beginning to translate into the sort of investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades that bolster economic growth, spurs job creation — and may finally raise wages significantly.
While business leaders are eager for the tax cuts that take effect this year, the newfound confidence was initially inspired by the Trump administration’s regulatory pullback, not so much because deregulation is saving companies money but because the administration has instilled a faith in business executives that new regulations are not coming.

In other words, after the eight-year regulatory tsunami of the Obama administration, Donald Trump’s deregulatory policy is having a positive effect on the whole American economy and will benefit both stockholders and employees. It will also increase government tax revenues and, since fewer bureaucrats are needed to enforce fewer regulations, it will decrease government expenditures, reducing the deficit.

The federal civilian labor force has been shrinking since President Trump took office. Trump signed an executive order soon after his inauguration requiring regulators to cut two regulations for every new one they add. So far, however, the ratio has been a remarkable 22-to-1.

Just by completing the Dakota Access Pipeline that the Obama administration had halted just short of completion, North Dakota oil production has increased by 78,000 barrels a day, putting downward pressure on global oil prices and reducing the American balance of payments deficit by $1.7 billion a year. (And, since pipelines are much less prone to accidents than railroads, it greatly reduces the chances of oil spills.) The Keystone Pipeline, finally approved after years of delay, will have a similarly positive effect when it comes online.

The powers-that-be at the New York Times and their fellow travelers elsewhere in the media would dearly love for Donald Trump to fail miserably as president, bringing on the blue wave next November that would give Congress to the Democrats, whatever the cost to the country. But if even the Times feels it necessary to report that “A wave of optimism has swept over American business leaders.” A blue wave, therefore, may be a lot less likely to sweep over the Republican Congress.

Obama Re-Writes History on Bush and Jerusalem

Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!

Commentary's picks:

Down Syndrome Speaks

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

Obama’s Motives

Obama Re-Writes History on Bush and Jerusalem

Must-Reads from Magazine

The Torment of Ajit Pai

Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!

Commentary's picks:

Down Syndrome Speaks

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

Obama’s Motives

A Year of Jobs

Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!

Commentary's picks:

Down Syndrome Speaks

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

Obama’s Motives

The Extreme Danger of an Irrelevant President

Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!

Commentary's picks:

Down Syndrome Speaks

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

Obama’s Motives

Bannonism Goes Bust

Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!

Commentary's picks:

Down Syndrome Speaks

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

Obama’s Motives

Trump Unleashes the Economy

Choose your plan and pay nothing for six Weeks!

Commentary's picks:

Down Syndrome Speaks

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

Obama’s Motives