I am trying to come to terms with some terms.
Actionable intelligence — what does that mean to Dems? We may never know.
Imagine not killing a terrorist because you may get attacked with terrorism.
That’s all, just trying to come to grips with those concepts.
I’m serious.
BTW: and would someone ask NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio what that pizza would cost if Democrat Socialists came to power? I bet 30 bucks would look like a steal.
Right Ring | Bullright
Trump was blamed for 3 years for not listening to intelligence. Now he responds to a real threat based on actionable intelligence and the Left goes berserk. In fact CNN’s byline now is question our intelligence first. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a Reaper Drone strike.
Indeed, all Democrats say they want to see the evidence and intelligence the president used in making the decision. They also dismissed killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
It turns out that there are suddenly a lot of arguments that can be made for not following our intelligence. Shall we say for NOT acting in real time to take out a major terrorist actor in the midst of rolling out attacks against the US.
Who thought that was possible?
It turns out there is so much to question about intelligence, much less what to do with it. I only wish everyone had the same interest in protecting US interests and in our national security. Wouldn’t that be nice? But they don’t; and let’s not deceive ourselves.
Our basic argument against Obama on Benghazi is that he didn’t do anything. In fact he did the opposite. He stood down any response to the attack. He should have had to explain it but he never did. Actually the whole thing was a cover up and lies by Susan Rice.
Incidentally, in the aftermath of the Qassem Soleimani strike, who was the top analyst CNN brought on to talk about it? Susan Rice. In a rational world of media coverage that would be irrational. And it would have no credibility.
Whom did CNN bring on next to talk about retaliation threats from Iran against the US? That would be FBI’s discredited former General Counsel, James Baker and Dep Director Andrew McCabe. Later, James Clapper rounded out their coverage of the experts.
Democrats are blinded by politics and their hatred for Trump. Those same people who never answered for the failures in Benghazi. Never mind that attacking our embassy is an act of war. They can ignore that.
How long till the left throws intelligence under the bus? But what a shame that Benghazi didn’t even merit a whisper campaign. That denial went on for years — same people.
Right Ring | Bullright
Oh, when will they ever learn? More lies, more coverup, more scandals.
A new story explodes that media no doubt has zero interest in reporting. If they do, it will need expert Obamafiles’ spin on it for them. You know how Obama never knew anything until it appeared in the paper. In this case, it was sure not to show up there.
by Brian Cates — June 14, 2019 | Epoch Times
Commentary
President Donald Trump’s long-anticipated visit to Europe during the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion has now come and gone. He arrived in the United Kingdom on June 3 and departed for Ireland on June 5 before hopping across the channel for the official D-Day ceremonies in France on June 6.
What I would like to draw attention to is what occurred immediately prior to Trump’s arrival in the UK, and what subsequently happened immediately after his departure.
Just prior to Trump’s visit, UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she would be resigning. She made this announcement on May 24 and stated that June 7 would be her last day in office. Literally one of the last things she would do as Prime Minister would be meeting with Trump.
Following Trump’s departure from Europe, it was suddenly revealed in the UK press that a massive terrorist bomb plot in London by the Iran-linked terror group, Hezbollah, had been foiled several years ago and that authorities had deliberately hidden this plot from the public.
It was in the fall of 2015 that British intelligence agency MI5 discovered a cell of Hezbollah terrorists operating in Northwest London. According to reporting by The Telegraph, the group had amassed a stockpile of more than three metric tons of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer compound that is a popular key component in homemade bombs.
The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh, in which he killed 168 people while causing extensive damage to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, involved two tons of ammonium nitrate. This Hezbollah terror cell had compiled three tons at the time they were caught. So let’s make this crystal clear: this was not going to be any kind of small-scale attack on London. …/
[Continue reading. A real story – not phony media news. Follow links.]
Okay, but who cares about why May stepped down when what Obama did making the Iran deal buried all the real information, and intelligence, that we had at the time?
Another feather in his no-scandal legacy — to be hidden or deleted in his Lie-Barry.
Will there be any probe into this? Probably not. Talk about conspiracy and cover up!
Big flash from the past….
By Mid-Hudson News Network | 01/25/2016
[NEW WINDSOR] >> The eyes of the world were on the Hudson Valley 35 years ago, when 52 Americans who had been held hostage in Iran for 444 days returned to U.S. soil by landing at the former Air Force base at Stewart Airport.
On Jan. 25, 1981, five days after being released from captivity, the former hostages walked down the stairs that had been rolled up to the passenger jet, kneeled on the tarmac and kissed American ground for the first time since being taken hostage on Nov. 4, 1979, at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
They flew to Stewart from a U.S. Air Force base in West Germany, their first stop after leaving Iran.
It does pay to remember.
This is one of the biggest statements of Obama apologists to validate his “legacy” of lies that still echoes across media in America.
” Improved America’s Image Abroad
With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years.
Favorable opinion toward the United States rose during Obama’s first term in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent, and have stayed high ever since.” – Washington Monthly
You’d have to give that one 5 giant Pinocchios. 10 of 15 countries surveyed? Really, that’s proof positive — 2-thirds, 66% of their countries surveyed. No sense in repeating the nonsense of this basic claim. It is debunked by flat history.
Anyone watching in the last 8 years, who wasn’t in a coma, can clearly tell you that is a lie, and that world opinion of the US suffered not improved. There were a whole lot of reasons for it. That is simply Obama’s claim, nothing more.
Even if it were true, it proves what exactly? Seems the world has funny reasons for liking us, like when they are rolling us or it is to their advantage. We should celebrate that?
I would bet, like his ballyhooed approval polls, that most of it is based on a personal like of Obama. Did countries, even in Africa, appreciate Obama lecturing and trying to force gay marriage on them? Leading from behind must have turned them on.
How about the countries where he meddled in their affairs and elections: Egypt, Israel, Canada, Russia? Then lighting the Middle East on fire, they must have loved that part? Or the refugee crisis he promoted across the globe. ‘Give us more, please.’
His severe bias against Christians was definitely a winner, with the Christian persecution he ignored. Love is in the air. Seems more like an abusive relationship with ‘we the people’ to me, but they probably liked that. When the world likes you, just consider the source. Then ask why? Brace yourself for the answers. So it didn’t take long to unlike us?!
RightRing | Bullright
Parting is such sweet sorrow. Infamous profanity mechanic and Trump basher, Reza Aslan, has gotten the boot from CNN. No more CNN promotion ads for you.
But wait a minute, I thought CNN said he was not tied to the network? Clever how you can terminate a contractual relationship that supposedly didn’t exist.
So in turn, Reza bids CNN farewell and then thanks them for their platform help.
“Obviously I am very disappointed in this decision. ‘Believer’ means a great deal to me and to the countless viewers it’s reached. Its message of religious tolerance and exploration is extremely important right now. I am deeply grateful to CNN for giving me the opportunity to launch the show and to amplify my voice on their network. I am especially grateful to the legion of people within the Turner organization who worked so hard to make the show a hit series,” said Aslan, in a prepared statement.
” However, in these politically charged times, the tenor of our nation’s discourse has become complicated, and I recognize that CNN needs to protect its brand as an unbiased news outlet. Similarly, I need to honor my voice. I am not a journalist. I am a social commentator and scholar. And so I agree with CNN that it is best that we part ways. I look forward to partnering with another platform in the future to continue to spread my message. I wish CNN all the best.” –
Source, Variety mag
That complicated tenor of the nation’s discourse…. Maybe try standup, they’ll back you up. Is there any place for a brain-eating, social commentator out there?
Yes, somewhere over the rainbow, maybe someone will appreciate his tolerance message. The POS remark to President Trump was not the only one, he also brandished it against Donald Jr earlier. He seemed to have a flare for that phrase.
No worry, Reza, I hear there is quite a market for your brand of hate language. And there’s always DNC rallies in the off season. So he took the CNN network by religious storm and he left in a storm. Shall we wait for the victim card? Another martyr of speech?
Get ready for a short trip in the way-back machine to 2008.
Obama’s campaign had a series of communications with both Iran and Syria.
Malkah Fleisher, 02/02/09 | Arutz Sheva
U.S. President Barack Obama employed representatives to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president.
United States President Barack Obama employed representatives and experts to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president, organizers of the meetings told Agence France Presse on Monday.
Over the past few months, Obama campaign and election officials, as well as nuclear non-proliferation experts, had several “very, very high-level” contacts with Iranian leaders, according to Jeffrey Boutwell, executive director for the U.S. branch of the Pugwash group, a Nobel Prize-winning international organization of scientists. Former defense secretary William Perry, who served in Obama’s election campaign, also participated in some of the meetings, which included discussions on Iran’s nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli conflict. …/
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad affirmed the reports Monday that Obama officials had repeated contact with his country for some time prior to the U.S. elections. “Dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the administration,” Assad said. ../ Read more
So guess who was talking to Iran months before taking office? I don’t even want to get on the Iranian Valerie Jarrett off-ramp. No SNL skits, only a “thrill up the leg” to media.
Hearings, investigations, wire taps, outrage, Independent Counsel…. don’t be silly.
While we are in the way back machine, let us go a few decades back to 1983. Good ol’ lion of the Senate, Mary Jo Kopechne killer, Ted Kennedy made his grand invitation to the Soviet’s Communist Party, and Yuri Andropov, to come intervene in our election. A quid pro quo. Senator Kennedy was trying to challenge Reagan and needed an edge.
The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.
So he promised Soviets wide access to the American media to make their case. But how would he assure Soviets of such unprecedented access? Well, Ted won’t be talking, nor anyone else either. Maybe we could ask his media friends? Investigations? FBI probe? Logan Act? Surely you jest.
Crazier than crazy, this is why Democrats should not have an ounce of credibility from anyone. This took my seething disgust level to a historic high, which is hard to do.
Rhodes Wikipedia Public Domain
Rep Jason Chaffetz held a House hearing about the Ben Rhodes lie doctrine and his lengthy interview with NYT Magazine. But what happens is totally in your American face.
Rhodes for his part refused to go to the hearing, even after laying his whole case out, how the fiction writer describes it, on what the administration did in creating the Iran deal.
Democrats turn it into a hearing about the Iraq war and WMD — remember their most favorite acronym of all time. Who knew that Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, yellow cake would be a viable defense for the deception and lies of the Iran deal?
Lets forget for a moment that the Iran deal was wrong all the way around. That it was the product of 3+ years of lies and obfuscation to avoid Congress; that it went right by Congress and was mischaracterized as to what it even is. But that is what we’re supposed to do: forget all the Art of Deception and lying Obama and Democrats are engaged in.
They did have John Hannah as one witness. The Democrats spent nearly all their time questioning him about his participation in Dick Cheney’s office in the lead up to Iraq. But never mind that the Iraq issue went through Congress, kept Congress informed, then it even voted on the authorization.
To recap, Democrats got their hearing …. the one on Iraq and WMD. (fundraisers probably going out as I write) Republicans had a hearing — between injections of Scooter Libby, Iraq, WMD, yellow cake, Valerie Plame, Colin Powel and Dick Cheney — on the Ben Rhodes expose about the construction of the Iran deal, hard as it was to fit that in with time constraints and all.
But how many times has that happened where Democrats hijacked the hearing process into something else? As true obfuscators of reality, they continually hide, deceive, and conceal truth from the American people and rely on repeating their talking points.(true or not) Politics is the motive, so some believe. To make the worse worser, the administration did not even want Congress’s oversight in and on the deal.
The only thing you can conclude from Democrats’ convoluted position is that if Iraq and the WMD was such a debacle, then that somehow mitigates what the administration did creating the Iran “art of deception” deal. So there is no rational reason now for looking into the deception and unconstitutional Iran agreement, even if Rhodes has been out boasting about the deceit involved in the Iran deal.
When Rhodes talked about his ‘compadres’ in the press he reaches out to, he reveals something more. This has been a pattern of Democrat WH operatives since the 90’s when Clinton advisers tipped off, directed or redirected reporters on what they should be covering or how. This came out in testimonies of the Clinton scandals.
The Obama administration lied repeatedly to get the deal done. But that is its pattern: lying about Obamacare, lying on Benghazi, then on the Iran deal from the start. And Democrats framed it as a binary choice that it was war on Iran or this deal, when this deal was the most flawed, subversive thing they could ever create even if they tried.
Now Dems can be ecstatic that, in the end, the focus was more on the Iraq decisions 14 years ago than on Iran. At least the opening statements of the witnesses and a few of their questions were related to the Iran agreement, not Iraq.
Sincerely disgusted. I can hardly wait to see what Ben-fiction-Rhodes will be writing about his time in the administration. Will they eat that up?
From the NYT piece that spawned the hoopla over the Iran deal:
He [Rhodes] expressed a deep personal hopelessness about the possibility of open, rational public debate in a brutally partisan climate. But didn’t the country deserve better? I kept asking him.
Must be sort of a self-imposed hopelessness since he didn’t even want to share details with Congress. Dang schedules and executive limitations that disallow such, while they do allow for countless hours of self-gratified elaboration to a reporter on the topic. But apparently Congress is off executive-privilege limits, unfortunately.
RightRing | Bullright
By: streiff (Diary) — May 8th, 2015 | Red State
Failure Theater. When the GOP talks a good game about opposing Obama’s policies but, in fact, vote to go along with them.
Yesterday the US Senate voted 98-1 to go along with whatever Barack Obama decides to give to Iran. Though the feckless Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has portrayed it as a successful “bipartisan” bill, part of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s erotic dream of “governing”, in fact it is a huge defeat for our Constitution. By turning the treaty process on its head, by giving Obama carte-blanche to do as he will unless Congress can muster the necessary 2/3 vote to abrogate his actions, the GOP has effectively taken the Congress out of any role in shaping US foreign policy.
This bill, thanks to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s bipartisanship fetish did not even require the Iran cease supporting terrorist attacks on Americans. Nope, reasoned the addled Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and the big brain types in the GOP leadership, requiring Iran to forego terrorism before we help them get a nuke was just too much. Obama would never stand for it.
So much for strategy. And Obama is running around complaining about the Republicans? Incomprehensible chaos. Maybe Iran could nickname its program “bipartisan”?
So we knew it all the time, we were being lied to. It was always obvious. But now Obama adviser Ben Rhodes comes out to publicly rub the media’s nose in it, much the same way that Jonathan Gruber delighted in our gullibility as the reason for passing Obamacare.
Everyone knows that Rhodes is basically a fiction writer, a talent that really has come in handy for the Obama administration. When you have your own in-house fiction writer, it makes lots of things easier than they would be — like lying.
By Washington Examiner • 5/7/16 | Washington Examiner
An extraordinary profile of senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes, published in the New York Times on Thursday, was very revealing about President Obama. It told a complicated story of how an administration that the president promised would be the most transparent in history prides itself on successful manipulation of journalists.
The critical insight of the story is about the Obama administration’s dishonesty in selling the Iran nuclear deal to the public. It turns out, for example, that the story carried by the press about the Iran deal being possible because of the election of a more moderate government in Tehran, was made up. It was a fiction, as various actual experts on the subject warned at the time. That is, in real terms, it was a lie. The deal was in fact already in the works in 2012, a year earlier than anyone knew. /…
How does someone like Rhodes manipulate the press? It’s like taking candy from a baby.
And take it they will…as often as they can.
What good is lying and deceiving people if, in the end, you cannot publicly rub it in their faces? Rhodes is a pretty dumb banana himself, but that doesn’t prevent him from fooling others to claim how intelligent he and they are. So… “It’s the stupid media, people.”
Just another day undermining America, for the Obama administration.
It doesn’t matter if “the 3 a.m. phone call” comes in the middle of the day. Not only will the Obama administration not answer it, but they’ll aid our enemies instead.
First came the fact that President Barack Obama refused to address the arrest of 10 of our sailors by the Iranian military after their boats had mechanical trouble at sea. Then came news that the Obama administration had offered the Iranians an apology for the release of the sailors.
Now comes the disturbing revelation, apparently delivered by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, that the Obama administration tipped off the Iranians that our soldiers were lost at sea and requested their aid. /…
Did you ever think someone would be so careless and or reckless with our country and our men and women defending it? Wait, he still has 12 months left, enough time to give up America’s arsenal. Maybe Obama should have called Tehran to help out in the Benghazi attack? Oh, right Obama wasn’t around for that. So Tehran probably told them ‘okay, this time, but don’t make a habit of it.’
The establishment has declared war on Trump, after coming to terms that he actually could win the nomination. No word yet how Democrats feel about this declaration.
Imagine the race on the Republican side is frozen in the polls from now until January with Donald Trump on top and Ben Carson a close second. Down the list is the establishment favorites including Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, unable to gain any traction or land serious punches against the frontrunners. That is the very scenario which several conservative and Republican-aligned political groups are planning for should the need arise. The crux of such a plan would include wall-to-wall negative advertising against Trump in the early primary states.
More: 2016 Election Central
“The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win,” noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. “I’ve heard that from everybody. I don’t hear anybody saying he can’t win the nomination anymore.” …/
Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party’s likely nominee.
That’s right, take Joe Scarborough’s word for Republican establishment.
Prepare for the 10,000 points of light offensive, to co-opt a GHW Bush phrase:
“I don’t think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire,” says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. “It would force him to spend money. That’s when this starts to get real for him.” (“Points” refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)
says [Club for Growth] McIntosh. “There are a large number of donors and political activists who want to do it.”
So someone has to do the dirty work. And someone has been planning — and no doubt creating — ads for their eventual onslaught. Translation, this could get real ugly, real fast. But ugly for the most part on the establishment side.
Indeed, other sources inside the RNC say chairman Reince Priebus has stressed to staff that they must stay out of candidate fights.
More: Washington Examiner
So then, let the bombardment begin. Well, since I wrote my main objection to Trump here before, it is now a moving target. On one hand there is Trump, on the other there is the establishment status quo. (the guys who blew almost every opportunity over ten years.) All bets are off. Want to consolidate Trump support?
Now if/when that onslaught starts, like others, I’ll oppose establishment RNC elites, which surely they must have factored into their calculated battle plans. This means that all their negative ads they run just could cause more negative scrutiny of the establishment.
Funny how these guys weren’t prepared to go to battle over the debt or over Planned Parenthood funding, or the Iran nuclear festival. But dammit they must take a no-holds-barred stand against Trump. Now he’s just a bridge too far. It’s almost comical.
However, when they force the criticism toward the estabo elitists, well it will only help Trump. So if that is the case, score one for the Donald once again. I guess that will make me a de facto defender of Trump. Cheers GOP. Watch your own Party torpedo itself.
(I don’t think you declare war without really going to war…but that’s just MHO)
Opinion writer –
The consequences of President Obama’s passive foreign policy came close to home this week.
My Post colleague Jason Rezaian, the paper’s Tehran bureau chief, has been languishing in an Iranian jail for 15 months on bogus charges of espionage. He was put on secret trial by a kangaroo court. On Sunday, Iranian state TV reported that he had been convicted.
And Obama said . . . nothing. He didn’t go to the briefing room and make a statement. He didn’t even release a written statement. On Tuesday, his press secretary, in response to a reporter’s question at the briefing, responded with what might have been described as minor annoyance with the Iranian regime.
“We’ve got a number of concerns,” the spokesman said, mentioning the “unjust” detention and “opaque” process.
More: http://wpo.st/0Fph0
That’s the White House, Obama’s message. Pick a number, any number…
Which of that number is just wrong and causes Obama to say something? 0
But it’s really not so baffling, for Obama. Yet he can come out to “politicize” a shooting in Oregon before the bodies are moved. Speaking of opaque.
I am mentioning some random observations, not that they are connected with one another.
Here we are on the verge of Hillary possibly getting into the White House, with Bubba Clinton. People are projecting her into popular office. No choice but Hillary. “Hard Choices”.
Russia revised its constitution in a way for Putin to get back into office. He’s more popular than ever in the country. They seem to love the guy.
Elists are unpopular in government or elsewhere. The American people are fed up with elitists rule in government and Washington in particular. The disgruntled seem to be across the political spectrum. Trump exposes behind the scenes media manipulation regarding the debates. Who knew? People are turned off by the bias of media in general. Media doubles down on bias.
The world is on fire with radicalism and Obama takes a sigh approach. Obama administration accuses Israel of using excessive force. State Department says that Palestine and Israel are committing terrorism.
David Cameron comes out to make speeches pointing directly to Islamic terrorism. Obama can’t be forced to use the words and says ISIS is not Islamic. Obama calls Islam a religion of peace. Obama wants to put more Muslims in space and other places. But Obama tells us the Crusades are an issue.
Jerusalem is under attack and knife wielding terrorists are spreading throughout Israael. When Israel takes defensive actions it is roundly condemned or criticized. Media cannot be any more biased against Israel.
Sure its a proxy war in Syria, but the media is finally admitting it? Old news, no? Russia has gone through its proper government channels to approve its actions. Obama is flying by the seat of his pants, much the way he did things in Libya. (that worked out well) Obama claims Russia, Putin are operating out of weakness. Hmmm.
Obama says global warming is the greatest security threat. Pay no mind to all other impostors. State of the State — maddening; requires willing suspension of disbelief.
Remember Ron Paul’s campaign doing what it called those ‘money bombs,’ fundraisers usually involving the internet? Here’s some real irony in Senators raising money or benefiting from Iran’s money bomb of lobbyist funding. “Incoming.” …
The captain of money bombs had nothing on Iran.
The Democrats are becoming a party of atom bomb spies.
August 25, 2015 — Daniel Greenfield | Front Page Magazine
Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.
There was no surprise there.
Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.
After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.
As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.
…/
Follow the money. As it said, in a few cases the money didn’t get the desired result. But for the cases it did, was there ever any doubt? I mean Al Franken. Gee, who would ever figure him for a holdout against the deal? The same can be said for most of the others. Now I wonder what the queen of non-answers, DW Schultz, will do?
So at the summer DNC meeting it was noted Obama could not even shore up support for his Iran deal. So what was in it for Obama?
CNN reports
The Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting is over, and there is something you won’t find in the official minutes: a resolution supporting President Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement.
The deal has divided the [Democrat] party, to the point where the chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, has not made her position clear as yet. As the President heads into a veto battle with Congress on the issue, he needs every Democratic vote he can muster. But Jonathan Martin of The New York Times noted he couldn’t get help from the party he leads.
“The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama’s Iran deal,” said Martin. “It’s a bit of an embarrassment for the administration, seeing as how it’s his party. He appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”
So Debbie is playing her cards close to her hairspray, eh? Wow that little deal is causing lots of headaches even at the DNC anti-Israel Party.I wonder if she is suffering from a case of crazyitis too? Or she could be one of those Iranian hardliner allies we hear about?
Why hasn’t she jumped to the head of the line and proudly endorsed Obama’s nuclear deal for Iran? Probably ol’ Debbie does not want to make her endorsement, of Obama’s deal, public as she’d have to explain it. She doesn’t do well on explaining things, or answering questions.
Am I to interpret that family feuds are now fashionable in the DNC?
Just like a family gathering or reunion with a little tiff, a little nuclear tiff.
Saturday, 29 Aug 2015 | Newsmax
President Barack Obama is comparing tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Iranian nuclear deal to a family feud and says he expects quick improvements in ties between the longtime allies once the accord is implemented.
“Like all families, sometimes there are going to be disagreements,” Obama said Friday in a webcast with Jewish Americans. “And sometimes people get angrier about disagreements in families than with folks that aren’t family.”
The president’s comments came as momentum for the nuclear accord grew on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers will vote next month on a resolution to disapprove of the deal. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., became the 30th senator to publicly back the agreement, saying Friday that it was a good deal for America and for allies like Israel.
The looming congressional confrontation has sparked a summer of intense debate between supporters and opponents of the nuclear accord. The deliberations have also divided Jewish Americans, with leaders of many organizations expressing concern about long-term damage to the community.
Oh, because we are good family members is why they are opposed to his deal? Yes, if we weren’t so close, Israel wouldn’t be so upset. Then why were Arabs/Saudis so against it?
With just 34 votes, Democrats could block the bill to prevent the Iran Deal. Obama compares it to a family feud. He’s so confident Israel will be right back on board once the deal is lodged into place. What an arrogant soul he is, if he has one. How is it, too, that he can speak for another sovereign country? Yet he used none of that prophetic vision in negotiating the deal. Why, it was to get a deal at any cost. Any deal that is.
But this is his M/O after all: scorched easrth politics at any cost, then assume the opponent will just live with it after he gets his way. The means to that end is lying, early and often.
After lighting the Mid East ablaze, Obama reaches for the marshmallows and says relax, enjoy the show and don’t worry about the effects, it’ll all be good. You’ll get used to it.
So many truths lurk in the background of all Obama’s lies. It’s amazing how he is trying to spin this Iran deal around.
Nile Gardiner / August 25, 2015
Just back from his annual summer vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, President Barack Obama has returned to disparaging his political adversaries and anyone who happens to disagree with him on policy.
According to a report in Politico, the president has taken to describing opponents of the hugely controversial Iran deal as “crazies.” The so-called “crazies” now include a majority of members of the House and Senate, a large chunk of the American electorate according to opinion polls, and the government of Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Now we’re the crazies when the crazy administration just made about the worst deal possible with Iran. He accused us of actually siding with the hard-liners in Iran when that is who he and Kerry made the deal with. And they are quite happy with it. Doesn’t that tell us anything? But it gets worse, the closer you look.
He made a deal that just doesn’t allow the terrorism to continue but makes us partners in promoting their terrorism around the globe. We are actually subsidizing and funding their activity. But then blame us because he cannot ram it through. The name-calling comes out. What a ruthless bastid Obama is. No one can even reason with him while he attacks and calls everyone names who disagrees with him. (probably his intent)
Start with a big lie though, just to make it fly easier. Call it something other than a treaty. Then Kerry issues the lame excuse that we can’t pass treaties anymore. So they had to lie to us. Notice a pattern here? Lie first, then say it’s our fault they had to lie to us. It’s probably true Obama is trying to drive people crazy with his schemes and blame machine, to silence the opposition. It hasn’t worked. So they just have to lie harder.
What time is it? It must be Obama slime time. Time to get the slime machine in mach speed, like the centrifuges in Iran.
He’s using every nasty slur and label he can to attack anyone, including Jews, who don’t support his Iran “peace in our time” nuclear deal. What’s behind door number one, nuclear bomb. What’s behind door number two, the Ayatolah and a nuclear bomb. Never mind what’s behind the third because you’ll never get passed the first two.
Aug. 9, 2015 10:08am Sharona Schwartz | The Blaze
The Jewish online magazine Tablet has accused the White House of engaging in “Jew-baiting” and “racial and ethnic prejudice” to slander critics of the Iran deal, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
The magazine’s editors compared the behavior of the White House to “the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally.”
Schumer, a Jewish Democrat, announced on Thursday that he was breaking with President Barack Obama and would vote to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement.
In the editorial, titled “Crossing a Line to Sell a Deal,” the editors of Tablet on Friday asserted that the “White House and its allies shouldn’t need to smear American Jews — and a sitting senator — as dual loyalists to make their case.”
While the editors noted that they “support the president” and “sympathize” with his efforts to combat Iran’s nuclear weapons pursuit, they wrote, “What we increasingly can’t stomach — and feel obliged to speak out about right now — is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it.”
“Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South,” the editors wrote.
“This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately — some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives,” Tablet wrote. “Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about ‘money’ and ‘lobbying’ and ‘foreign interests’ who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.”
“It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States — and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it,” the editors wrote.
“Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry — no matter who does it,” the editors added.
Read more The Blaze
Time for Obama to unleash another divisive attack campaign on his opponents — even if they be Democrats. The White House has threatened that anyone vying for leadership would be held to account for past positions. Dems have already announced they will oppose Schumer for leader based on this position. Of Course if Schumer was not such a racist, bigot, backed by Jew billionaire lobby, anti-peace extremist, dual loyalist, war monger, and ally to the radicalized “death to America” Islamists in Iran. Any questions?
Kerry lied but were we really expecting anything else? Sure Kerry tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. No doubt they figured we would find out. But again if lying is the means to the end, then once done it doesn’t matter if you know. Like so many other issues by Obama, lying is the means.
George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 7/31/2015 | Conservative Headquarters
Proof that Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Texas Senator Ted Cruz have it right in opposing Obama’s deal to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons has surfaced from a most unlikely source: French official, Jacques Audibert, the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. ../
“He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told Rogin in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”
We got Kerry’s ten year deal from hell. It’s hard to imagine something that wouldn’t be better than what they got, especially when they started with failed principles. We could say Kerry swift-boated America. When even French question the thing, it has to be bad. But then what do liars do? So Cruz and Cotton must be painted as the bad guys.
