Obama sacks advisor foreign policy advisor Robert Malley (updated)

Thomas Lifson
Yet another advisor has been dumped overboard by the Obama campaign when embarrassing information has come to public notice. American Thinker has been out front in drawing attention to Barack Obama's scary team of foreign policy advisors. And we have taken abuse  by defenders of Obama  for our work.

But now, even the candidate has fired another person whose counsel he has sought: Robert Malley. Tom Baldwin of the Times of London reports:

One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama's Middle East advisory council.

"I've never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people," he added.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: "Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future." The rapid departure of Mr Malley followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle East policy.

Malley's cozy relationship with Hamas really should come as no surprise to Obama or anyone else. And Malley is far from the only advisor of Obama that should give those concerned with Israel's survival pause before supporting Obama. Not to mention the candidate's own announced intention to meet with the Iranian regime, certainly no less evil than Hams.

Update -- Ed Lasky writes:

The Times describes -- as many other independent sources have -- Malley as having been one of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers. There has been a great deal of controversy raging over Malley's role in the campaign.

Malley has been faulted for providing a false account of the Camp David peace process during the Clinton Presidency (which placed the blame for its failure on the Israelis --contradicting every non-Palestinian account of the proceedings) and for a long series of screeds that criticized American and Israeli policies in the Middle East and advocated ties with a wide range of terror groups and dictatorial regimes.
Aside from my articles at American Thinker, critics have included Noah Pollak at Commentary and Paul Mirengoff at Powerline.

When controversy erupted over the role of Malley, the campaign went to great lengths to try to spin a story that he was not an adviser to the campaign. However, independent sources, including the New York Times a few weeks ago -- continued to identify him as a Middle East Policy adviser 
regardless of the campaign's story.

Now the Times of London has also identified him as an adviser who has now been "sacked" because it was revealed he had been in contact with the Hamas terror group. The campaign had been telling pro-Israel audiences that Barack Obama would not talk with Hamas unless and until it had renounced terror, recognized Israel, and abided by previous agreements the Palestinians had signed with Israel. Did Malley not get the memo?

A question arises. The campaign has been in full denial mode that Malley was ever an adviser, yet now the paper reports that the campaign has sacked him as an adviser, and furthermore that he was on the Middle East Advisory Council when he left. The paper notes that the Republican Party has been engaged in finding out more about Barack Obama. Did their research reveal this fact about Malley and was that the only reason the campaign now --finally -- was forced to disassociate themselves from this "expert".

I believe I hear an echo. Barack Obama has repeatedly said that the controversial Pastor Jeremiah Wright was not his "spiritual adviser" (even though he has characterized him as his "sounding board", "moral compass" and "confidant" -- all characterizations the media has chosen not to ask him about) even though it was later revealed that Wirght was on the Obama campaign's "spiritual advisory" board.  As Senator Obama himself has said "words are important" and Barack Obama knows how to elide issues with the best of them

Of course, one would be remiss in not recognizing a pattern.

Furthermore, Samantha Power purportedly resigned (a meaningless "resignation"-she was not on the payroll) in the wake of calling Hillary Clinton a "monster". Yet a few weeks later, she alluded to the possibility of coming back to serve in an Obama Administration should he become President.
Will Malley just continue to collect paychecks from the George Soros-supported International Crisis Group while he cavorts with a Who's Who of terrorist leaders and murderers?

One also might wonder how the former State Department officials who rallied to his defense in the wake of the controversy feel about attesting to his character.

Have we seen the last of Malley or will he just be in a holding pattern with Samantha Power until the November election is past?

A pattern is emerging regarding Barack Obama's judgment. He seems to have a penchant for choosing advisors and associates who engage in conduct that reflect very poorly on him. When some of their views and actions come to light by other people's due diligence, he goes into the stage of denial: the various advisers are not really advisers, or they do not advise on this policy or that policy. When the political problems persist -- or are exacerbated (see Jeremiah Wright, post the National Press Club tirade) -- he is compelled to do the politically expedient thing: publicly, at least for a time, distance himself and the campaign from them.

The question arises: if Barack Obam has such superior judgment, why does he choose his advisors so poorly in the first place?

Update: Paul Mirengoff of Powerline succinctly sums up  the Obama campaign's evasiveness:

"It's now clear that the Obama campaign was being disingenuous. After all, you can't sack someone who is merely sending you emails."

Yet another advisor has been dumped overboard by the Obama campaign when embarrassing information has come to public notice. American Thinker has been out front in drawing attention to Barack Obama's scary team of foreign policy advisors. And we have taken abuse  by defenders of Obama  for our work.

But now, even the candidate has fired another person whose counsel he has sought: Robert Malley. Tom Baldwin of the Times of London reports:

One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama's Middle East advisory council.

"I've never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people," he added.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: "Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future." The rapid departure of Mr Malley followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle East policy.

Malley's cozy relationship with Hamas really should come as no surprise to Obama or anyone else. And Malley is far from the only advisor of Obama that should give those concerned with Israel's survival pause before supporting Obama. Not to mention the candidate's own announced intention to meet with the Iranian regime, certainly no less evil than Hams.

Update -- Ed Lasky writes:

The Times describes -- as many other independent sources have -- Malley as having been one of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers. There has been a great deal of controversy raging over Malley's role in the campaign.

Malley has been faulted for providing a false account of the Camp David peace process during the Clinton Presidency (which placed the blame for its failure on the Israelis --contradicting every non-Palestinian account of the proceedings) and for a long series of screeds that criticized American and Israeli policies in the Middle East and advocated ties with a wide range of terror groups and dictatorial regimes.
Aside from my articles at American Thinker, critics have included Noah Pollak at Commentary and Paul Mirengoff at Powerline.

When controversy erupted over the role of Malley, the campaign went to great lengths to try to spin a story that he was not an adviser to the campaign. However, independent sources, including the New York Times a few weeks ago -- continued to identify him as a Middle East Policy adviser 
regardless of the campaign's story.

Now the Times of London has also identified him as an adviser who has now been "sacked" because it was revealed he had been in contact with the Hamas terror group. The campaign had been telling pro-Israel audiences that Barack Obama would not talk with Hamas unless and until it had renounced terror, recognized Israel, and abided by previous agreements the Palestinians had signed with Israel. Did Malley not get the memo?

A question arises. The campaign has been in full denial mode that Malley was ever an adviser, yet now the paper reports that the campaign has sacked him as an adviser, and furthermore that he was on the Middle East Advisory Council when he left. The paper notes that the Republican Party has been engaged in finding out more about Barack Obama. Did their research reveal this fact about Malley and was that the only reason the campaign now --finally -- was forced to disassociate themselves from this "expert".

I believe I hear an echo. Barack Obama has repeatedly said that the controversial Pastor Jeremiah Wright was not his "spiritual adviser" (even though he has characterized him as his "sounding board", "moral compass" and "confidant" -- all characterizations the media has chosen not to ask him about) even though it was later revealed that Wirght was on the Obama campaign's "spiritual advisory" board.  As Senator Obama himself has said "words are important" and Barack Obama knows how to elide issues with the best of them

Of course, one would be remiss in not recognizing a pattern.

Furthermore, Samantha Power purportedly resigned (a meaningless "resignation"-she was not on the payroll) in the wake of calling Hillary Clinton a "monster". Yet a few weeks later, she alluded to the possibility of coming back to serve in an Obama Administration should he become President.
Will Malley just continue to collect paychecks from the George Soros-supported International Crisis Group while he cavorts with a Who's Who of terrorist leaders and murderers?

One also might wonder how the former State Department officials who rallied to his defense in the wake of the controversy feel about attesting to his character.

Have we seen the last of Malley or will he just be in a holding pattern with Samantha Power until the November election is past?

A pattern is emerging regarding Barack Obama's judgment. He seems to have a penchant for choosing advisors and associates who engage in conduct that reflect very poorly on him. When some of their views and actions come to light by other people's due diligence, he goes into the stage of denial: the various advisers are not really advisers, or they do not advise on this policy or that policy. When the political problems persist -- or are exacerbated (see Jeremiah Wright, post the National Press Club tirade) -- he is compelled to do the politically expedient thing: publicly, at least for a time, distance himself and the campaign from them.

The question arises: if Barack Obam has such superior judgment, why does he choose his advisors so poorly in the first place?

Update: Paul Mirengoff of Powerline succinctly sums up  the Obama campaign's evasiveness:

"It's now clear that the Obama campaign was being disingenuous. After all, you can't sack someone who is merely sending you emails."