Eric Holder, Obama and Snowden

Obama disagrees with Holder on Snowden

By Susan Crabtree | Washington Examiner

President Obama does not agree with the view of his former Attorney General Eric Holder that Edward Snowden performed a “public service” by leaking classified documents about the United States’ sweeping surveillance programs.

Holder, in an interview with CNN’s David Axelrod over the weekend, said Snowden’s illegal act had some silver linings for people by shining a light on U.S. surveillance techniques. But he also said the former contractor for the National Security Agency must pay a penalty for the crimes.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest was unequivocal in his response to a question on whether Obama agreed with Holder’s perception that Snowden’s actions had some redeeming qualities for the public.

“A careful review of [Obama’s] public comments will indicate that he does not” share Holder’s view, Earnest said

Read: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-disagrees-with-holder-on-snowden/article/2592644

Odd that Obama would be forced to publicly disagree with Holder. So Axelrod interviews Holder, and that is real credible journalism? I wonder if this is the beginning of the talk which is to end in a Snowden pardon? Since when should a former AG come out to defend a criminal? But then these guys are radicals, it’s what they do.

WH refuses to use Genocide word

White House says it is not convinced ISIS ethnic cleansing we’ve seen is “genocide”.
CNS News

The reporter asked Earnest, “But you’re not prepared to use the word ‘genocide’ yet in this situation?”

“The — my understanding is the use of that word involves a very specific legal determination that has, at this point, not been reached. But we’ve been quite candid and direct, exactly, about how — how ISIL’s tactics are worthy of the kind of international, robust response that the international community is leading. And those tactics include a willingness to target religious minorities, including Christians.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-spokesman-cant-say-if-isis-slaughter-christians-genocide

Well, what number triggers that word, or definition? What kind of atrocity does it have to be? He can parse all he wants. People know a program when they see one. And what he qualified as the beginning at Mount Sinjar was not the beginning of the atrocities. So that is to admit that they had ignored it pretty much until that situation.

Funny though that they can toss around and use the word “torture” so loosely to suit, whenever they want to make a case of it. “Worthy” but not of using the ‘g’- word.

Live from DC …. it’s press briefing!

Now for a Ha ha — Hilarious moment:

The White House was asked Thursday how it feels about the uranium story and Clinton’s approval of the deal.

According to Washington Times, Josh Earnest responded (apparently with a straight face)

“At this point, there has not been any evidence presented that would prompt the president or anybody at the White House to be unsettled by Secretary Clinton’s conduct as secretary of state,” said Mr. Earnest. “In fact, everyone here at the White House, including the president, continues to be very proud of her service to this country.” (More)

No problem! Now that I have my laugh for today, we’ll see if this love affair lasts. Josh said his lines just as well as John Podesta, or any of the other Clintonites said them. Excellent delivery, Earnest. Of course the evidence along with Clinton’s server are probably somewhere in the Mariana Trench.

What’s their definition of “service to this country”?
Is that anything like Bergdahl serving “with honor and distinction”?

Dems try to cheat the electorate

What else is new?

Dick Morris: Democrats Using ‘False Flag’ Plan to Steal Senate

Tuesday, 14 Oct 2014 | Newsmax

By Dick Morris

Failing to persuade voters to support their discredited agenda, Democrats are now determined to use a false flag strategy to advance their plan to steal a Senate majority this November.

Masquerading as independents in four key Senate races, Democratic candidates are embracing a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing tactic to fool voters into believing that they are not the party hack/Obama rubber stamps they truly are.

By pretending that they are Independents, they can take power and help Obama implement his plan to create a single ruling party government in the U.S.

Read more at Newsmax

Oh yea, they are the IN–dependents.

Hope on the ropes
Josh Earnest said:

“Ultimately, those Democratic candidates will have to develop their own strategies in their states for figuring out how exactly to do that,” he continued. “And there are people running in red states that have a strong track record. … So it should be their decision. It’s ultimately their campaign; it’s their name that’s on the ballot.”

“Democrats who are running in red states, blue states and in so-called purple states are going to need the strong support of those voters who supported the president in his re-election campaign, that they’re going to need the support of young voters and Hispanic voters and Asian voters, African-American voters, of course. And so helping voters in all these states understand the stakes in the midterm elections is one way the president can help Democratic candidates on the ballot.”

He forgot to mention women. All voters are to Dems is their collective commodities.

Obama stuck out his nose:

“And so some of the candidates there — it is difficult for them to have me in the state because the Republicans will use that to try to fan Republican turnout,” Obama said.

“These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me, and I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to do to win. I will be responsible for making sure our voters turn out.’ ”

He owns the voters. It’s all about Obama.

It wreaks like a narcissist trying to be relevant. At the time they distance themselves, arguably, from Obama he says not to worry they always vote with me and will remain with me. But ‘say or do what you must to win an election.’ In other words, lie. Tell them whatever you need to tell them. But we know they are merely Obama stooges anyway.

Calling themselves independent at all is insulting. Independent of the record, maybe. Just what we all really love about politics, saying anything to get elected and doing the opposite.

Is that a great voter turn-on or what?

RightRing | Bullright

World according to WH Baghdad Josh

According to Josh Earnest:

People can be confident of the tenacity of government’s response to be able to deal with evolving situations, on the Ebola crisis.

Asked about a Ebola or disease czar, Earnest said that they are continually monitoring the situation and, if needed. they would “not hesitate” to install one.

Here’s a simple analogy of our current Ebola situation
Suppose you have a ship and it somehow gets a hole in the midsection. The captain immediately puts an alert to keep an eye out for any new cracks or holes in the bow. Then the captain says we are not going to repair that hole because we don’t think that is productive to dealing with the problem… in the water where it originated.

Also for perspective from a nurse about Ebola, see here.

Now apply either of the above talking points to the Islamic State, or ISIS’ black-flag death cult. Does Obama say “we are monitoring the situation and tenacious on responding to it…and if troops or more response is needed we will “not hesitate” to provide it”? No, of course not. But on the contrary, Obama absolutely rules it out. I’m sure that if more troops or something is needed for Africa, he will “not hesitate” to act accordingly.

However, when it comes to closing the border and travel from the infected areas, well, he refuses to do that. In fact, he declares it the wrong thing to do. (notice the pattern) Since when did Obama “NOT HESITATE” about any crisis? Worse, Obama’s first line of defense to a crisis is not even to hesitate, but actually ignore or deny it.

Now if, according to the talking points on Ebola so far, the chief “symptom” of someone causing them to be contagious is a fever, then you could say they’re acting by checking temps of passengers in selected airports. But that “symptom” check only suggests whether the person is contagious at that moment. (going by what they told us). That means that truly the only people they are protecting are supposedly other passengers and airline staff. So a person can show up somewhere like Thomas Duncan did, or travel to a destination in the middle of America, and become contagious.

The only thing it does is help insure he isn’t infectious in travel or at airport. That’s like a suicide bomber making it all the way through the checkpoints without being detected only to blow himself up later at some destination. And if we should have such an incident, we will not hesitate to respond in our tenacious government.

Make sense? I thought so. Thanks, Obama, or maybe that is the strategy to allow someone to pass through undetected. Why would you not place travel restrictions, especially after the exact scenario already happened? Now we have the fallout from the initial patient. The irony now is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

More toxic fallout — or symotoms:

State attorney general wants to stop ashes of Ebola victim’s belongings from being brought to Louisiana

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said late Sunday that he will seek a temporary restraining order to stop the incinerated belongings of Dallas Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan from being brought to a Louisiana landfill.

However, there is no evidence that this would spread the dreaded disease.

Another unforeseen problem. Surprise!

RightRing | Bullright

Why oh why is Obama so stubbornly ignorant?

Obama says no boots on the ground, despite sending some troops to Iraq to work with the Kurds. But he has said no ground combat troops, he made up his mind.

(9/17/14)

MR. EARNEST: I did not see the full context of Secretary Gates’s remarks. But with that caveat, let me say that the President has been clear about the need to take the fight to ISIL on the ground in Iraq and in Syria. What the President has ruled out are American servicemen and women being in a position where they are the ones that are responsible for engaging in combat operations against ISIL on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The President will not consider that option.

What the President will do, however, is ramp up the assistance that we’re providing to Iraqi security forces as they take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country. The President has said that he will deploy and has already ordered American airstrikes against ISIL targets in support of Iraqi security forces and their ground operations.

Obama is adamant. “Ruled out” is pretty strong.

General Dempsey said:

“He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis,” Dempsey said. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Islamic State] targets, I’ll recommend that to the president.”

To rule them out on a case-by-case basis? But that’s is not the only issue.
Josh Earnest tells Ed Henry that the troops sent can defend themselves.

(9/18/14)

Q The last one on that point — in your exchange with Jon, if U.S. troops are forward deployed, as you say, alongside Iraqi troops, giving them tactical guidance, and these U.S. troops are fired upon by ISIS, are the U.S. troops to do nothing?

MR. EARNEST: U.S. troops will have rules of engagement; they always do when they enter a situation like this.

Q And what would those be? Will they fire back at them?

MR. EARNEST: Again, I’m not going to detail those rules of engagement. The Department of Defense can do that for you. But certainly the Commander-in-Chief would expect that the American troops do what is necessary to defend themselves. That would be –-

Q If they’re defending themselves and they’re firing back they’re in combat.

 

The last statement key. “Defending themselves.” They will have the means of defending themselves, only. So they obviously are only in a an defensive posture. Earnest added:

MR. EARNEST: Iraq is a very dangerous place and American military personnel will have the equipment they need to defend themselves. But what their role will be — and this is what’s real important for people to understand — their role will not be to roll across the border in a long line of tanks to occupy significant territory in Iraq. Their role will be to provide advice and assistance to Iraqi security forces who are taking the fight on the ground against ISIL. In some cases, that could mean being on the ground in forward-deployed locations to call in airstrikes –-

At least they’ll have the equipment they need to defend themselves.

RightRing | Bullright