Investigation Update

Remember the case of the leaked information on the Stuxnet virus designed to degrade Iran's nuclear program? You're not alone--the media seems to have forgotten as well, along with most of the conservative blogosphere.

At last check Obama's "favorite general" Hoss Cartwright was the person of interest, but the Washington Post told us that the investigation had been delayed so as not to interfere with Obama's super-awesome peace-in-our-time nookular deal with the Ayatollahs.

After Ben Rhodes gleefully admitted that they successfully lied their way into that deal, one might think the door would be open to prosecute the Stuxnet leakers because the current administration has taken a scorched earth policy on such things.  And....as everybody was just recently made aware, even joking about leaking can be considered treasonous!

So..... how is the investigation coming along?

And by the way, speaking of generals...

Obama's post terror leadership: the audacity of Trump

Some may remember this comment going around before the 2008 election, taken from Obama's second biography "Audacity of Hope", emphasis added:

"(T)he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

President thin-skin just made that crystal clear again today.  Even some of the top cheerleaders in the White House press room were a bit taken aback by Obama's passion and how it was directed more towards Trump than our radical Islamic enemies. 

But they of all people should have no room to complain---they are the ones who overlooked or downplayed snippets like the above back when it counted.  Obama telegraphed everything he's done up to this point before he was elected, it was incumbent on citizens to ferret those views out by themselves because the press was acting as his campaign staff. 

Now, his passion towards immigrants is not necessarily misdirected--we are a nation of immigrants--and nobody should want people a repeat of FDR's FEMA camps for Muslims.  But when he focuses his passion more on their rights or Republicans or the Second Amendment than the barbarity of the terrorists that use Islam to justify their actions., it's a tell.   It's why we have a Donald Trump. 

A lot more than 28 pages

The media is becoming buzzed about the uproar about the 28 redacted pages in the 9/11 report that presumably fingers Saudi involvement (and Bushco protection) in the plot. Obama, while calling his administration the most transparent ever, has refused to release pages for his entire presidency for some reason.  Riyadh is throwing out a massive bluff in an effort to stop it, well, an effort to retain sovereign immunity so they won't be sued. 

With recent pressure the president has royally proclaimed he will decide on whether to declassify it during some Friday before a holiday weekend this summer.  Meaning he can either decide not to and hope the presidential elections suck all the attention away, or announce he will declassify the pages and hope it takes until Christmas to complete.   It's surprising he didn't appoint another blue ribbon panel to study whether he should declassify these or not, which is probably because he doesn't need a year or two to stall.  

Speculation has focused on the docs confirming the Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 cartoon version of Bush, but stop and use some critical thought for a second.

One, if this were just some politically embarrassing confirmation on Bush's chummy friendship with the Sauds why wasn't it released long ago?   Two, 9/11 and Islamic terrorism didn't just spring forth on W's inauguration day, it was there dating back to his pappy's presidency at least. So, what about Saudi involvement in terrorism BEFORE Bush? Were they playing a double game with us with bin Laden, et al? 

It's possible, certainly not probable, but possible the release of the 28 pages might also pressure some sunshine on the details described in this essay going back to the 90s.  For instance, who was Ramzi Yousef, exactly? Who funded him? Who were he and his uncle KSM really working for, or against? Was there Saudi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, or other plots going back well before 9/11?   This of course would be seminal considering that Bill Clinton is effectively running for a third term in the White House. 

There are many reasons why even an Obama administration wouldn't release information fingering the House of Saud in the 9/11 plot, oil, obviously, but also the notion that America was going to war with Mecca and Medina.  Or the notion that 28 pages won't satisfy our curiosity.   Hillary already knows the answers to many of these questions and she's a favorite to enter the Oval Office and lock everything down for another 8 years.  Good luck getting anything out of a president allowed to get away with having a private server. 

So we return to Obama and the 28 pages.   If he does shock the world and authorize release--and the release occurs before the November elections--and it illustrates Saudi involvement in the plot DURING the tenure of Bill Clinton (when the plot was hatched), what would that do to his wife's presidential chances?   Is Obama holding a massive Trump card at the moment?

HILLARY WEIGHS IN .. already

In a slightly bizarre spectacle former Clinton insider George Stephanopoulis asks Hillary about the Schumer-Cornyn 9/11 bill, in which she claims she has no opinion on because she hasn't studied it (maybe she learned about it on TV).  After the interview, Team Hillary realized how bad this looked and responded with a statement, which is a model for law school students:

"Hillary Clinton supports the efforts by Senator Schumer and his colleagues in the Senate to secure the ability of 9/11 families and other victims of terrorist acts to hold accountable those responsible. As president she would work with Congress to this end."

Hard-hitting and specific! Hillary wants to hold people accountable!  The person who used a private server, outside of all government rules and ethics.

MORE  4/17/16

It's interesting that 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said the following:

John Lehman, secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and another member of the 9/11 Commission, told 60 Minutes:

“We’re not a bunch of rubes that rode into Washington for this commission… We’ve seen fire and we’ve seen rain and the politics of national security. We all have dealt for our careers in highly classified and compartmentalized in every aspect of security. We know when something shouldn’t be declassified. And this, those 28 pages in no way fall into that category.”

[snip]

Lehman told 60 Minutes that he has no doubt some high Saudi officials knew assistance was being provided to al Qaeda, but he doesn’t think it was ever official policy. He also doesn’t think it absolves the Saudis of responsibility, Kroft said in his commentary.

Keep in mind the 28 pages aren't from the 9/11 Commission Report, which barely mentions Bandar, they are from a Congressional Inquiry Report initiated in 2002. The question then is whether this information was classified only by the Bush administration, or whether there were Democrats on the committee who agreed to keep it quiet.

After all, the Kuala Lumpur terror summit meeting was held in January 2000, well before Bushitler and Darth Cheney entered office.  If Saudi Arabia was working with AQ that means they were doing so under Clinton.   Did he know?  We are left with the following scenarios regarding the CIA:  1) they knew about Saudi involvement but didn't tell Clinton, or 2) they didn't know about it, and if so, why not (especially since they tracked the terrorists from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles)?  Or 3) they knew and told Clinton but he didn't do anything, or worse, told agencies to stand down.

All of those have tremendous blowback potential not directed towards Bush.   The question is will the media allow any blowback on the Clintons for anything?   They may not, but they have no control over a loose cannon like Trump at a debate, do they. 

WORD   4/19/16

This should be the final post on this topic, really on this blog, period.  Many bloggers got their legs posting on the search for objective truth about the GWoT, especially after the disinformation began.  I threw in my two cents because it seemed important.

Now Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, is out today using this 28 page issue to suggest Bush fraudulently attacked Iraq, exactly as far lefties have claimed for years.  Forget that it's another attempt at throwing away all history prior to Bush's inauguration.  It's maddening to see this twit out there rolling this issue to pander to moderate and lefty New York voters and think he's the frontrunner.   It's a subject that should not be 'used' for anything, it should be investigated like everything else.  

It's equally maddening to see Bill Clinton poised for a THIRD TERM in the White House after everything that has occurred since he left, stuff partially caused by his failures to stop AQ from growing during the 90s, as "path to 9/11" indicated.  The media?   They do not care about objective truth they care about the coronation of his wife as the first woman president because they love her and the concept of her.  This despite her disqualifying display of ineptness and lack of judgment in the personal server story alone (Benghazi not included).   The fight has basically been lost.  But here's one more attempt to pass along some rational thought.

John Schindler: why we need to discuss more than just Saudi Arabia.   

Transparency Clinton Style

Say what you will about the bizarre spectacle that is the GOP primary, the primary alternative continues to display her own special clown act.  Here's an example of where she thinks the public deserves transparency...

Hillary Clinton says barring any national security risk, she would like to open up the government files on Area 51 to the public if she is elected president. “I would like us to go into those files and hopefully make as much of that public as possible,” she told Jimmy Kimmel Thursday night on his late night ABC talk show. “If there’s nothing there, let’s tell people there’s nothing there.”

And here's a situation where she doesn't think the public deserves transparency:

The previously undisclosed February 2009 emails between Clinton from her then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, raise new questions about the scope of emails from Clinton’s early days in office that were not handed over to the State Department for record keeping and may have been lost entirely. Clinton’s presidential campaign has previously claimed that the former top diplomat did not use her personal "clintonemail.com" account before March 2009, weeks after she was sworn in as secretary of State.

Pretty telling, eh?  No wonder the kids like Bernie. 

In the meantime, video is making the rounds of a national security stemwinder Mrs Clinton puffed out recently in the shadow of Brussels wherein she compares her steady leadership against Trump's when it comes to kicking some terrorist arse and gathering our friends to help.

And such a strategy might be an effective, especially if propped up by the media, except for one thing--most of what she's talking about doing are things Obama is currently NOT doing, and she was an integral part of his administration when the Arab Spring in Syria gave rise to ISIS.   

But Obama is trying to help.  He's been slow-rolling his fight against the JV squad since 2012 but lately it seems progress is being made with the loss of their number two and the counter-attack to recapture Mosul underway.  The Syrian Army is retaking parts of their country after a dose of Putey Poot.  ISIS may indeed be on the run now.  All of this may time out perfectly for November. 

But again, not so fast.  There are still ISIS cells in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, plus thousands of radicalized wannabees sprinkled around the globe.  Obama will have to answer to his policy of "Assad must go" if Assad becomes more firmly entrenched.  That's his legacy problem, but nobody will really care.  But Libya?  That's on Hillary.  Which is low-hanging fruit for a player like Trump.

Investigation Update

With all the hoopla over Hillary's emails and Obama's Iran deal, one story has completely been buried--the Stuxnet leak on Iran. Back when Holder was holding fort at DOJ he promised to get to the bottom of a leak about Stuxnet to the New York Times, appointing US Attorney for Maryland Rod Rosenstein to handle the case.

This was way back in 2012--the leak was basically in support of Obama's reelection campaign. Dribs and drabs of information would occasionally bubble out over the years, but in small quantities. Few cared.

Eventually in 2013 we were told the prime person of interest was "Obama's favorite general" retired 4 star Hoss Cartwright. Indeed he was. But then the story went cold again.

Then just recently we learned that Cartwight's case was more or less put on hold because it could have potentially interfered with the peace in our time Iran nuke deal.  Who made that call, by the way?   Obama has said the Attoney General's office is completely independent. 

The president has also bragged about his administration's severe handling of leakers and those who violate their security oaths. Lower level people have been sent to jail. The Defense Department is contemplating a move to reduce the rank of General Petraeus ex post facto. But we have Cartwright's case still in limbo? Did he leak or not? The Iran deal is done, where's the update?

Yeah, but it's all legal and stuff

The Wall St Journal's article about Obama's spying on the dangerous terrorist Bibi Netanyahu has illustrated the slippery slope of the NSA's 702 collection program.  Yes, there should be some admission on the right that such a thing could occur.  Meanwhile, lefties who were once outraged at such things are using the legality to justify Boehner, McConnell and other congressmen getting caught up in a snooping program designed to stop Israel from stopping the ridiculous non-binding, non-treaty with actual terrorists dressed in Mullah suits. 

It's worth a look back at 2007 to see how far things have tumbled down the slope..

Update Update

Just wondering about some forgotten stories...

.. about the important hunt for the non-Islamic African terrorist Joseph Kony.  Some may recall Obama sending several hundred American troops to help bring him to justice a number of years ago.  Not much news since, but the WaPo has just released an update..

As their mission stretches into a fifth year, however, U.S. troops have turned to some unsavory partners to help find Kony’s trail. Working from a new bush camp in the Central African Republic, U.S. forces have begun working closely with Muslim rebels — known as Seleka — who toppled the central government two years ago and triggered a still-raging sectarian war with a campaign of mass rapes and executions.

The Pentagon had not previously disclosed that it is cooperating with Seleka and obtaining intelligence from the rebels. The arrangement has made some U.S. troops uncomfortable.

Wonder if those Muslim "rebels" are actually Muslims, or are they non-Muslims like ISIS?  Or are non-Muslims like ISIS the ones Obama was talking about when he said non-Muslims should not condemn Islam due to Islamic terrorism, or was he talking about Christians?  And is Joseph Kony a Christian terrorist or just someone who is perverting Christianity?   Confusing. 

...and in another story, what about Obama's favorite general, Hoss Cartwright?  A few years ago he made news when he became a target of a US Attorney-led investigation of a leak of top secret information to the press on Iran.  Last word was that it was 'stalled' due to concerns over the Iran deal.   Well, it's done now, so what's going on?   Remember, David Petraeus was prosecuted for leaking in less time.  And he's not the only one.    

Oh well, maybe CBS will do a 60 Minutes special on some of this real soon.  Maybe they can get Lara Logan on the case. 

About that Section 8 in the Burbs Thing..

The story that broke the other day, at least on conservative sites, about Obama's HUD wanting to use federal money as a kind of extortion racket to force municipalities to change zoning laws to basically break up affluent suburbs (and their voting blocs) is not really new news.

It actually broke in 2012. Someone wrote a book about it.  The same guy has been yelling about it for awhile.

The only word that comes to mind here is craven. Not necessarily for the Obama people--they promised change and Obama had socialist roots after all--but for our disgraceful national media.  They've buried this story and countless others in their eight year quest to help the historic first black president.  And he's taken every advantage. 

The End is Near

Today in Germany the president did one of his patented press conferences, using over 30 minutes to interact with 4 reporters.  The last question was about the Supreme Court's possible ruling on the federal exchanges in Obamacare.  The answer was the usual incomprehensible filibuster, but the reporter tried again one more time, at which point this is how it ended..



Bizarre.  

So what about the headline of this post?   Well, this answer doesn't signify the end being near, but the fact the person answering it has the power he does--and many would say his predecessor--is perhaps cause for concern.   Or, the end is near could refer to Obamacare itself, ie, something is going to end with this ruling, either the law or the GOP pushback.  Or maybe it's the end of this silly blog.  Hard to say which will come first. 

Professional Tools

Today's White House briefing is just more evidence there is no effective media left in this nation.  Yeah, Bob Schieffer, the lovable dunce, confirmed it on Howie Kurtz's show over the weekend by admitting the press was smitten with Obama and probably didn't cover him like they should have, but the WH briefings confirm it almost every day.

Josh Earnest must have used the words "professionals" and "tools" in regards to the lapsed Patriot Act a hundred times today--in nearly every reply.  They are clearly key words designed to enhance his talking points and make the opponents look unprofessional or unpatriotic.  He didn't hesitate blaming the GOP for politicizing the lapse.  But there was not one mention of Ron Wyden. 

Earnest also would not admit the country was less safe, despite some decent prodding by Fox News and CNN (they should have ganged up on him over it) because that would be an admission the lapse was on Obama since the buck supposedly stops with him.   Now, if an attack comes, they WILL blame it on Paul (both sides) and get away with it.   There will be no video of the White House admitting they failed the public, etc.

In that same regard, Earnest got mildly caught in a lie about Obama's authority.  Remember that Bush put this program together in secret after 9/11 with no help from Congress.  It was an EO.  As we've seen, Obama is not shy about using his imperial phone/pen, so he could have altered the PA language any way and any time he wanted.  But doing so would put his exclusive BO stamp on it, and that was a bridge too far politically.  Best to lay back and blame Rand Paul.  Nobody in the briefing pointed out the White House was playing their own politics.   Another bridge too far.  

As to the program, let's face it--Bush lied about the bulk collection data.  Obama lied about it.  Had Snowden not come out there would be no national debate with Obama trying to take credit for reform.  Zilch.   The American people should be just a little upset that ALL meta phone records are being kept by the NSA, whether the voice part was there or not.  Having the phone companies keep the data, allowing government access with a valid warrant is better, so long as they don't use it as leverage against them in other ways or the data doesn't get hacked.  

From my view, there are parts of the PA that need reauthorization.  The bulk collection is another animal and it needs to be done differently, but the issue here is public understanding and acceptance of the trade off.   Obama has said the wars are over and AQ is diminished and ISIS isn't coming here tomorrow, so why do we need such a program anyway?   Of course few believe that.   All sides cannot resist playing politics, but they should put on their big boy pants and do some leading.

For instance, come clean and explain that we either give up some liberty and trust the NSA and others not to abuse this power (James Rosen comes to mind) or give up some security for the sake of liberty and freedom, which might mean we get hit again.  If we do and its because the government didn't know everything about everybody, including bank records, well, it's not their fault, it's the terrorists' fault.   Whether the public at large is even able to understand such a concept much less accept it is perhaps a question I don't want to know the answer to.   

Anyway, you now know what some inconsequential blogger thinks.  Does anyone know where Hillary comes down on this?  Has anyone even asked?   Where is the Scooby Van?   

Go back in the hole, Seymour

Message to award-winning journalist Sy Hersh, the guy who exposed the My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib: the left doesn't love you unless you are exposing Republican lies, criminality and scandal.  When you expose leftist lies and propaganda you are nothing but a scummy kook, and probably a racist.

So maybe you should consider going back in the hole and waiting until another Bush comes into power, or some other Republican.

After all, Mike Morell, the former second in command at the CIA, who helped propagate the lie that Benghazi was about a hateful video from an American practicing his first amendment rights, has said the Hersh story about bin Laden is "all wrong":

"I started reading the article last night, I got a third of the way through and I stopped, because every sentence I was reading was wrong. The source that Hersh talked to has no idea what he's talking about," Morell said.

Every sentence! Even the ones where he admits the SEALs did a raid and shot bin Laden, apparently--wrong.  Wrong, wrong wrong!

In the same CBS interview the same guy, Morell, apologized to former President Bush, er, no sorry, to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, for sending him over to the UN to lobby for taking out Saddam because..

"We said he has chemical weapons, he has a biological weapons production capability, and he's restarting his nuclear weapons program. We were wrong on all three of those," he said.

So the CIA was 'all wrong'.  But it's nice to see Mr. Wrong apologize to Mr. Wrong for being wrong.  All of which makes Bush the wrongest.  Wait, was Hillary Clinton all wrong when she characterized Pakistan as helpful in getting UBL:

She said: "In fact, co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound in which he was hiding."

Gee, that's exactly what Hersh said.   But it's wrong!  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Maybe Hersh didn't deserve those awards after all.  Or maybe he does.

MORE  5/11/15

It's interesting to watch the mainstream media complain about Hersh's use of one anonymous source.  Wasn't "Deep Throat" one anonymous source?

Anyway, this Eric Wemple blog post in the Post points out why this won't be a major story--it indicts the mainstream press.   It also indicts the idea that waterboarding KSM helped find al-Kuwaiti, the courier Hersh's source claims doesn't exist.  So there's reason for the right wing to scream 'wrong, wrong, wrong' on this as well.   In other words, this is likely going nowhere, or the same place Hersh's story about Bashar Assad's use of (or not) chemical weapons went.

One thing the story claims is that the 'treasure trove' of information obtained in bin Laden's lair, CDs, memory sticks, etc, did not exist.   Investigators have been grumbling about the slow-walk given to the data's release, well, why not release it now, to prove Hersh wrong?   If there really are thousands of intelligence docs redact them, and release them.

MORE  5/12/15

Interestingly, neither the WaPo nor NY Times are front paging their stories at this moment, so you have to search the search bar.  The Times' report is strange, as if giving some credence to Hersh's allegations.   They also point out that an FBI agent described the 'treasure trove' in detail at a trial for an noted AQ figure some months ago, which means the government allowed him to perjure himself.  Either that or Hersh's sources are full of BS.  Or Hersh is actually a kook. Or the Obama administration is lying.  Again. 

Either way, it's certainly entertaining to watch the left throw their hero under the bus, even if gently in some quarters.

FUNNY, THAT  5/12/15

So far the only network news org that has at least partially confirmed Hersh's reportage is NBC News..

The broadcaster has corroborated Hersh's claim that the 'walk in' asset that revealed the vital information as to where bin Laden was hiding was in fact Pakistani.

The official US line, however, maintains that the CIA located him by tracking couriers to his walled in complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan. NBC News stated that it has 'long been pursuing leads about a walk-in', and that their own findings match those reported by Hersh.

So NBC is on board.  At least in print.  At today's White House press briefing the only question NBC's White House correspondent Chris Jansing asked Josh Earnest was about getting Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill. It may have been just me but Earnest seemed almost amused at such a giggly question.  He had probably prepared for worse,  but NBC saved him the trouble today. 

Actually, watching the presser is like watching a White House lecture series with the professional reporters asking weaker questions than students might during a university lecture.  When one reporter--the Fox guy--asked about an inconsistency in the Benghazi narrative Earnest shot back at him, causing many in the room to laugh at Fox.  That's their idea of speaking truth to power.

Over at the State Dept there were no questions asked about it--just like yesterday. At the same time, many prominent political reporters have spent the past few days obsessing over Jeb Bush's inartful reply to Megyn Kelly's question about re-doing the Iraq war.  It's really an amazing thing to witness. 

Enough Said

Drudge flagged this today...

"Kid Interviewer Cuts off Obama"

The comments are hilarious, most having to do with the kid teaching the mainstream media baby birds how to do it, or about the kid's future now that he's dissed the One.     

Meanwhile, the "professionals" sit there in the White House briefing room and look embarrassed if Jonathan Karl or a Washington Times or Fox reporter asks a tough question.   Just imagine what we might find out if they replaced all the 'professionals' with a room full of 12 year olds like this kid.   

The Obligatory Peace in our Time Post

Obama seemed to be in a very feisty mood announcing his awesome framework deal with the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and death to America quotes.   The framework deal summary is here; following is an internet yahoo's summary of the summary.

First, imagine making a similar deal with Saddam Hussein.  Imagine had George W. Bush not invaded in 2003 and the No-Fly Zones were still in place and somehow we made it to 2008 without a blow-up and new president Obama extended his hand to the Butcher. 

Imagine a deal that would have allowed the Butcher to maintain some of the enriched uranium under stockpile and retain a nuke program for civilian power, so long as he didn't do anything funny for 10 years, with his reward being a lifting of many sanctions.  Now substitute the slightly less crazy Mullahs for Saddam and that appears to be where we are now, Iran retaining its nuke program.  Wait, could Obama even have made a nuke deal with the Iranians with Saddam still in power?  Probably not.  Use your imagination.   

This bottom line is what the asshole, er, the pain in the ass, uh sorry, the chickenshit in Jerusalem said when he came to DC.  The Mullahs have only to wait for ten years until they reach their goal, with our blessing.  A country that has not allowed full scale inspections--like Iraq--will now be regulated over a deal allowing them to keep a nuke program by rough and tumble international inspectors who couldn't find Iraq's WMD buried all over the desert and completely missed Gaddafy's program.

Ten years goes by fast.  We are coming up on the 14th anniversary of 9/11 this September. 

Anyway, the mainstream media will more than likely be treating the Iranian leaders similar to Gorbachev soon, heralding the historic accord and volunteering them for the Nobel.  Congress, bypassed in the process again, will express displeasure and be ignored and shamed.  If they dare do something bold they will be threatening world unity.

The Euros will slither back to their bicycles and lattes satisfied they did everything they could without having much of an army to back it up, while the the Russians and Chinese will offer somber hope while secretly high-fiving in the background (you know if they are onboard the deal must be better for them than us).

But the bottom line is this:  by coddling the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism and death to America chants and allowing them to keep their nuke program, Obama will not have to grind over authorizing an airstrike at 3am before his term ends, freeing him up for more important things like selfie sticks, April Fools videos, dances on Ellen, and punishing his enemy.

The Israelis?  If they bomb they are on their own, against the entire world.  Surely that has been made clear.

Who "They" Consider?

Just watching the clip of prez Obama telling "Vice News" he's embarrassed for the 47 Senators and noticed some strange phrasing..



"..for them to address a letter to the Ayatollah, who they claim is our mortal enemy..." 

Uh, doesn't the president consider them a mortal enemy as well?  Or was that a tell?  Guess we'll have to see how the "Vice News" reporter reacts to that question when they release it on Monday.      

Why so prickly?

Watch State Dept spokesbuffy Marie Harf react to a simple question today about the Middle East..



Nothing to see move along!    

Of course she immediately knew the implication of a question about Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia meeting together to discuss an alliance without United States involvement--Iran.  They seem very sensitive about this.

If you want to know what's actually important right now look at what the Obama-approved media isn't harping on:  Iran is closing in on a deal that would almost surely allow them to keep their nuclear program, a deal which if signed would make it harder for Israel to take them out in a bombing raid, and not only due to possible threats such as this, but just based on being called an international pariah and sanctioned by the UN.

At the same time Iran has 1) helped Bashar Assad remain in power (the guy whose days were once said to be "numbered" by the administration),  2) almost certainly helped the Houthi rebels take over Yemen, which just normalized air traffic between San'a and Tehran, 3) continued to fund Hizballah and HAMAS while now providing military assistance via the IRGC to the Iraqi Army in their offensive to retake Tikrit.  It's as if we're now BFF with the Iranians. At what point do they get removed from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism?

While doing all of this they've also managed to blow up a mock US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf while burning a figure of the president in effigy (along with their usual 'death to America' chants).  More importantly they've managed to scare Netanyahu into flying to Washington to give a speech about the dangers of all of this.

Yet despite all the red flashing lights the American people largely couldn't give two hoots. They are severely war weary, which Obama knows, which is why Netanyahu decided to come and speak, which is why the Obama cabinet was dispatched out of town for the Bibi speech, with an even bigger middle finger message sent by John Kerry, who will be talking to the Iranians the very same day.  Netanyahu is almost getting the Tea Party treatment (the real terrorists).  Hey LA Times--let's see that Rashid Khalidi video, how about it?

So yeah, this administration rilly, rilly wants a nuke deal with Iran.  Seemingly at almost any price.  Yes, we all realize these things are too nuanced for dunce conservative bloggers to understand; that when the dust settles Iran will have been bitch-slapped into lowered sanctions while retaining their nuclear program.  To most people this will sound like paying sticker price for a car but to our super genius negotiators and the press it will be the biggest peace deal in our time, just in time for Hillary.

Of course, if Iran keeps their program and gets lowered sanctions while Israel's hands are tied, and we allow Tehran to project its image all over the Middle East, including taking over Iraq, Syria and Yemen, well, that unconseqential non-story about Sunnis that Marie Harf tried to dismiss today will become front page news.

TAKE THE DEAL, IT'LL BE GREAT!

Obama talked to Reuters today and telegraphed his willingness to make an Iran nuke deal, practically begging the Iranians to do it.



He assured Americans that after any deal that 'inspectors' will be able to keep them honest, even though inspectors are saying Iran is not being honest right now.  And it's not like international inspections weren't a joke in Iraq and Libya. 

So let's think about this.  How can the administration NOT end up with a deal, after two busted self-imposed deadlines and after throwing a flag on Bibi for interference?  Obama is on record of saying he has a firm commitment that he will do everything possible to keep Tehran from going nukular, but everybody including the Iranians knows this does not include a military option. It just doesn't.  Even if Obama wanted it the American peeps would balk.  He has less than two years left and he's not about to open a can whoop-anything on anyone.

So, lacking a deal and no military option he'd have no choice but to re-impose sanctions.  Iran would go back to using their proxies to destabilize the region, a region where they now exert even more influence, including over Iraq and their oil.  Obama would not take much of an immediate political hit for a failed deal followed by re-imposing sanctions because the mainstream media would cover his backside, but in the real world the Ayatollahs would emerge with their nuclear weapons program, more regional control, and a bigger swarth than ever before.

Netanyahu, assuming he's still in power, would almost surely have to attempt to take out the nukes before Obama's term expires, which could get a little messy.  But even if Bibi doesn't win and an Israeli dove lap-dog PM gets elected, there's the specter of that Sunni alliance Marie Harf was trying to downplay today and the resultant nuclear arms race it could produce.  Obama desperately needs a deal to make it to January 2017.  A deal kicks the can but it conceivably holds off the Israelis, the Sunnis, and the Republicans.   

Yes, but it IS Islamic

The brouhaha continues over what America should call the violent extremists wreaking havoc across Arabia in the name of Islam.  Reacting to the criticism mainly from the right, Obama and his press staff have lately been twisting themselves into pretzels trying to pretend there is no Islamic connection to Islamic terrorism.  Who knows whether they truly believe that or are just trying to punt the problem to Billary or Bush III.

But the words spoken in his recent Countering Violent Extremism conference (which was supposed to blur the lines by also pointing to domestic right wing terrorists as well) suggest the president might be going off the deep end with his blind apologias coming down through the clouds from his judgmental perch atop Mt Nuance.

Here's what he said about the role of Muslims in the founding of America:

He seems to be saying Muslims were involved in the very founding of this nation.  Not to say there weren't any Islamic immigrants in the late 1700s, there just weren't enough to make much of an impact on the founding. Of course he knows this.

As a professor he also knows that America's first real engagement with organized Islam occurred when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Envoy from Tripoli to Great Britain, who schooled them about paying the jizya tax if we expected our new independent American-flagged merchant vessels to get a free pass into and out of the Mediterranean:

That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

So in truth our first significant encounter with Islam was defeating violent extremists in North Africa legitimizing their barbarity through the Koran, which led to several Barbary Wars against terror.  In other words, nothing much has changed since then, except the players.

Of course this is a piece of history that our lecturer-in-chief will not expose because it might suggest that a fundamental interpretation of Islam calls for people to do exactly as the Barbary Pirates and AQ and ISIS have done.  And it will continue to happen unless, as Egyptian PM al-Sissi has suggested, a reformation occurs within Islam.  Maybe the president can't admit that (he can only condemn Christians) but living in denial will not change anything either.  

But maybe he's not living in denial.  Maybe, with no more elections to win and the likelihood of no more major quasi-socialist policy initiatives being passed through Congress to pad his legacy, Obama has nothing left but to troll the GOP in search of incendiary reactions the Democrats can then use as fund-raising fodder.  Would he stoop so low to play games with national security like that?  You be the judge.

But it seems clear he was playing games with the Executive Actions on pardoning millions of illegal aliens, which almost surely had to be intentionally messed up--nobody could be that stupid.  If so, the only explanation that makes sense is that he was throwing it against the wall knowing it would be struck down only to get juicy "anti-immigrant" sound bites that Wasserman-Shultz could use as more fund-raising fodder to stoke up donors for Billary along with producing anger throughout the illegal alien community. especially when the GOP fails to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Blasting the Strawmen

Since Obama has no more elections to win he's of no mind to give pre-Superbowl interviews to anyone who might ask tough questions. It's all about controlling the national narrative now.  

To help, CNN broadcast an interview yesterday with the plagiarist, a preview of the attack strategy to be used in defining the narrative.   Discussing the threat of Islamic terrorism, Obama basically downplayed the whole thing then blamed Bush... again (shown in bold)...

"The truth of the matter is that they can do harm. But we have the capacity to control how we respond in ways that do not undercut what's the essence of who we are. That means that we don't torture, for example, and thereby undermine our values and credibility around the world," Obama said.

"It means that we don't approach this with a strategy of sending out occupying armies and playing whack-a-mole wherever a terrorist group appears because that drains our economic strength and it puts enormous burdens on our military."

Blaming Bush is the gift that keeps on giving with his base, but Democrats as a whole need to downplay terrorism.  Clinton did it in the 90s despite bombings, attacks and bin Laden's multiple declarations of war against America.  When challenged on it later by Fox's Chris Wallace he went ballistic, all while trying to make sure ABC News spiked its terrorism docudrama "the Path to 9/11".  It's hard to focus the country on taxing the rich and downsizing the Defense Department if Islamist terrorists are posing an existential threat against Western Civilization.

In 2004 John Kerry tried the tactic again, suggesting to the NY Times that terrorism should be treated as kind of nuisance.  That's one reason why the Dems don't want Bibi Netanyahu coming to Congress to remind people of the harsh realities.  It's also likely one of the main reasons Obama sent nobody to the anti-terrorism march in Paris.  In his old new narrative AQ is a nuisance, still on the run, and we need to fight them with smart power, using pinpricks and FBI agents like Clinton, and hey, deploying lots of troops to combat this diminishing threat is hard on the troops not to mention stupid like Bush.  That's basically his foreign policy in a nutshell.  

But Zakaria wasn't the annual pre-Superbowl interview, it was with the most friendly Obama mirror of all--NBC News.  Savannah Guthrie, a nice pleasant female anchor, was chosen to ask the questions.  Yet she seemed to put a small chink in the narrative by daring to call it a 'strawman argument'. Watch the reaction around the 1:35 mark...

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

He looked rather peeved at this interruption, after all, he was getting to the crux of the narrative.  Oddly enough he mentioned that leaving (Iraq) caused the problem because the country wasn't ready to fight for itself, without blaming himself for leaving.  Suddenly now staying for years is the right thing to do.  Later in the interview the CinC actually said he is NOT downplaying terrorism by downplaying terrorism, but in a much more nuanced way than in the Zakaria interview (after the 11 minute mark).

Perhaps he felt like Guthrie might actually challenge him a little more and re-calibrated, although he did get in his "shoot first aim later" Bush-McCain-Romney bash comment in both interviews without challenge.

As to the strawman, not only Zakaria carried this theme on Sunday, but the Washington Post also featured a touching story on how Obama is deeply affected by the casualties of war:

Discussions of war and peace in Washington often revolve around abstract questions of policy and national interest. Rarely mentioned are the human costs of war and how they weigh on a commander in chief. “It’s probably the least appreciated and most difficult part of leadership,” said Michele Flournoy, who served at the top levels of Obama’s Pentagon. “It’s not an abstraction, and, if you have any doubt, it eats at you, because the human costs are very real.”

At the end of Zakaria's interview he had asked Obama to recommend a book. Without hesitation Obama recommended a book called "Redeployment" by Phil Klay. This was clearly not spontaneous, evident by the way Obama reacted to the question and the fact CNN put a cover of the book on the screen while they were talking.  Sorry, the control room isn't that good, so they were helping him make his point.

The book happens to be about a soldier's perspective on the cost of war. Clearly a good thing for a Commander-in-Chief to be reading and promoting, right? Right, unless he's doing it in cahoots with the MSM to fight a war against domestic political foes critical of his response to increasing terrorism.

So based on Obama's reaction one has to wonder if Guthrie went off the script when she blurted out 'strawman', which forced an abrupt interruption by the president, while later asking tough questions about whether terrorism was as defeated as he claims.  

Meanwhile, the 2016 budget came out today.  It has no chance of passage, but we'll see if media puppets the talking points of the wise and caring president trying to help the 'middle class' despite the same guy hardly mentioning the middle class before the mid-terms last November.

Back then the WH needed the black vote, so the press focused on Ferguson and New York and "reverend" Al coming in and out of the White House and pounding his fist, all while his fellow Democrats kept a 10 foot pole between themselves and the White House because they were so afraid of how the middle class might vote.  Where is Ferguson now?  

Now the WH needs to tamp down the threat of terrorism again, just like 2012 before Benghazi, so we'll see if the press comes along and helps like Candy Crowley did in the second debate.  The CNN and the WaPo examples would suggest that yes, nothing will change, but perhaps Savannah Guthrie's small but surprising 'truth to power' moment indicates that a few networks might try salvage a smidgen of credibility going into 2016.  Yes, right, we've been fooled before.

Dragging Congress Back to Iraq

Reportedly Obama will ask Congress for a new AUMF in Iraq to fight ISIL,ISIS, IS, Daesh.

"I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL," Obama said, referring to the Islamic State group.

An area of compromise, according to AP reporter Julie Pace.  Sounds more like a naked attempt to drag the GOP Congress back into Iraq and get them on the hook should the degrading and destroying not be complete before 2016.   They signed onto the old one (where did it go) but that war was 'ended' responsibly, perhaps one of the greatest accomplishments of the Obama administration.  Yeah, so that's a lot of hangout for the Dems if things don't go well over the next 18 months.

Anyway, we'll see if the previews match the puff and pageantry.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Not that it has come up yet, but who cares whether the Paris murdering jihadi-thugs were lone wolves or official members of an AQ cell?   Their actions are inseparable, all done in the name of Islam.

Al-Sisi just spoke about all of this the other day.  His words were largely ignored in the West.  And he's probably rising with a bullet on AQ's Inspire Hit Parade as we speak.

In the meantime it's nice to see the peeps across Europe finally assembling in the streets to offer statements of defiance towards this murderous intolerant ideology...

 

Too bad our own leader has repeatedly equivocated when it counted as to taking these kinds of stands. We'll see if Hollande does likewise in the next few days. 



(The last sentence in that clip is strange considering this).  

Speaking of AQ terrorists and lists, Adnan el-Shukrijumah is still on the State Department's Rewards for Justice and the FBI's most-wanted terrorist lists, this despite the Taliban and others proclaiming otherwise.  Pretty good accomplishment for a dead guy (he's now eligible to vote in Memphis and Chicago!). Why won't the administration confirm his death? Why will nobody ask them? 

Presidential Holiday Message

The prez gave a Friday afternoon press conference ahead of his AF1 departure to a Hawaiian vacation.  He wished everyone a merry Christmas at the end.  But interspersed within the presser were what sounded like some subtle messages.

First, his opening statement.  He reviewed his awesome year, reflecting on how things had markedly improved across the board.  In other words, why did a bunch of racist crackers shellack him in November?

In the open section he took questions only from preselected female reporters.  He didn't take any questions from the front row mainstream alphabet media reporters from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, or Fox.  Taking away those reporters makes a presser very tame--some of the women he picked were literally gushing.  But c'mon, it's never that hostile.

But speaking relatively, it's true that guys like Ed Henry, Jon Karl and Major Garrett have asked tough questions throughout the year.  So it appears they were punished.  Or as the president half-joked, they had been 'naughty'.  No questions for you. 

This brings to mind the recent comments from former ABC reporter Ann Compton about the cuss-word tantrums the White House has had over coverage on what they consider phony scandals.  And it certainly fits the premise of Sharyl Attkisson's book: do something we don't like, get cut off.  Merry f'ing Christmas. 

As to the Sony hack, that was also curious.  He was unusually adamant--they were wrong.  No ifs ands or buts.  And not only that, they should have called him beforehand to discuss it because he would have set them straight.  This despite Sony's explanation that it was the theater chains who refused to show the film, leaving them no choice.  But remember what the studio heads were quoted as saying in the leaked emails about Obama.   Apparently he was paying attention, so they were punished. 

During a question about his failure to allow the Keystone pipeline, he didn't say anything about falling oil prices not making it feasible, or the environmental disaster some in his circle wet their pants over, or the inherent hazard of transporting by rail rather than pipeline (because the oil is coming out either way) no, he essentially said it would be a negligible change, create few jobs, and would mainly benefit Canada.   This is the same president who just relaxed our stance with commie Cuba over nothing, and there he was off-handedly dissing Canada.  When did it become bad to help a great and loyal trading partner and become more energy independent to boot?  What did Canada do to him?  This?  Good Lord.  
 
At the end he acknowledged the press has a job to do and likes to report on all the latest blow-ups, blood and guts, but then he gave them a tip--

IT IS YOUR JOB, PRESS CORPS, TO REPORT ON THE MISTAKES THAT ARE MADE, THE BAD THINGS THAT HAPPEN, THE CRISES, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THROUGH PERSISTENT EFFORT AND FAITH IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THINGS GET BETTER.

THE ECONOMY HAS GOTTEN BETTER. OUR ABILITY TO GENERATE CLEAN ENERGY HAS GOTTEN BETTER. WE KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW TO EDUCATE OUR KIDS. WE SOLVE PROBLEMS. EBOLA IS A REAL CRISIS. YOU GET A MISTAKE IN THE FIRST CASE BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN SEEN BEFORE. WE FIX IT.

WE HAD SOME UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AT THE BORDER. IT MAY NOT GET FIXED IN THE TIMEFRAME OF THE NEWS CYCLE, BUT IT GETS FIXED.

PART OF WHAT I HOPE, AS WE REFLECT ON THE NEW YEAR, THIS SHOULD GENERATE SOME CONFIDENCE. AMERICA KNOWS HOW TO SOLVE PROBLEMS AND WHEN WE WERE TOGETHER, WE CAN'T BE STOPPED. AND NOW I AM TO GO ON VACATION. MY HOLLOAHALO.

In other words, report my rosy, shiny, happier news or maybe you'll keep getting shut out. Mihalo and goodbye.  

MORE  12/22/14

The Hollywood folks don't miss stuff like this.   Just wondering how they think calling Franco "Flacco" was helping Denzel.  Maybe they don't realize who Joe Flacco is, unless I'm missing something.