Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry's 'Background' demonstrates why Huma Abedin’s background mattered.


Secretary of State John Kerry's 'Background' demonstrates why Huma Abedin’s background mattered.HT: Shoebat.

When folks like Andrew McCarthy articulated why our findings about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s close adviser Huma Abedin were important, his camp was smeared as being discriminatory. His argument had nothing to do with discrimination or Islamophobia. It had everything to do with Abedin’s familial ties compromising her judgment and allegiances to the U.S. Constitution.

Here we have an example that demonstrates this reality further and it comes via Kenneth Timmerman, who has picked up on the fact that the new Secretary of State – John Kerry – has a son-in-law with family still living in Iran. This reality could conceivably affect how Kerry deals with the Iranians.

Via the Daily Caller:

In a greeting to the Iranian people on the occasion of the traditional New Year (Nowruz) holiday last week, Secretary of State John Kerry exposed a secret that journalists and academics have been agonizing over for the past six weeks: the fact that his daughter has married an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran.

I am proud of the Iranian-Americans in my own family, and grateful for how they have enriched my life,” Kerry said in the official statement. Kerry also said he was “strongly committed to resolving” the differences between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, “to the mutual benefit of both of our people.”

Politicians like to keep their families off-limits to the press, a decorum enforced vigorously when it comes to politicians who are in favor with the national media but ruthlessly discarded for others. But in Kerry’s case, there could be larger ramifications.

Since its inception, the FBI has vetted U.S. government officials involved in national security issues, and it generally won’t grant clearances to individuals who are married to nationals of an enemy nation or have family members living in that country, for fear of divided loyalties or, more simply, blackmail.

There it is. Certainly, even leftists can comprehend this concept without inserting race into their thought processes (oh, wait). Imagine a scenario in which a representative of Iran’s mullahs approaches the State Department with a list of demands that, if not met, could have serious consequences for Kerry’s in-laws living in Iran.

In the current political construct, such demands could conceivably involve the U.S. withholding money, weapons, or aid earmarked for a country like Egypt as tensions in the Middle East escalate. While that may not sound like a bad idea to those of us who understand the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood, shouldn’t our Secretary of State’s sole interest be in lockstep with the interests of the United States?

Last year, Abedin’s familial ties to the Brotherhood prompted calls to see her Form 86, which she would have had to fill out in order to gain a security clearance. If she did not, we have a problem. Similarly, if Kerry did not, we also have a problem.

Who would have thought that two consecutive Secretaries of State would have to deal with such controversy?

Then again, enough people have to care in order for it to actually be a controversy.Hmmm.......Kerry: I Will Implement 'President Obama's Vision For The World'. Read the full story here.

No comments:

Post a Comment