Trump Jamboree

Trump Jamboree

LIFTOFF! DOW Over 22,000!


Making America's Economy GREAT AGAIN!!!

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Why It's So Easy for Iran, Syria, Russia and other Bad Guys to Fool Obama

Obama really does believe it's all the fault of the U.S.!

Did you notice how quickly the Iranians jumped into the picture after Obama accepted the phony Russian offer to confiscate and destroy all Syria's chemical weapons? I guess they decided that they better move now before someone in the Obama Administration figures out how badly they've been duped and starts acting like adults.

Charles Krauthammer explains the method behind the Iranian move:
But successful negotiation is not what the mullahs are seeking. They want sanctions relief. And more than anything, they want to buy time.

It takes about 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in August that Iran already has 186 kilograms. That leaves the Iranians on the threshold of going nuclear. They are adding 3,000 new high-speed centrifuges. They need just a bit more talking, stalling, smiling and stringing along of a gullible West.

Rouhani is the man to do exactly that. As Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005, he boasted in a 2004 speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, “While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [uranium conversion] facility in Isfahan. . . . In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan.”
Such is their contempt for us that they don’t even hide their strategy: Spin the centrifuges while spinning the West.

And when the president of the world’s sole superpower asks for a photo-op handshake with the president of a regime that, in President Obama’s own words, kills and kidnaps and terrorizes Americans, the killer-kidnapper does not even deign to accept the homage. Rouhani rebuffed him.

Who can blame Rouhani? Offer a few pleasant words in an op-ed hailing a new era of non-zero-sum foreign relations, and watch the media and the administration immediately swoon with visions of détente.
Surely Obama and the people around him must know what are the real intentions of the Iranians? Or perhaps not. Obama and the associates with which he surrounds himself have been schooled from infants on an ideology that blames America and the lack of social justice for all the miseries of the world. The theory goes that if you cut America down to size then  all the bad guys will have less to fear and will moderate their behavior. Take a look around. How's that working out? Political instability, violence, radical Islam, civil war is spreading like the plague. Yet Obama tells the United Nations in his speech last week that " the world is more stable than it was five years ago." His ideology has blinded him to reality.

The bad guys around the world aren't so naïve and certainly not willfully ignorant when it comes to history and realpolitik. And they very quickly learned that if they flatter Obama's ego, do a little p.r. dance and say the right words they can go right on doing whatever it was they wanted to achieve their goals. They know Obama doesn't have the stomach, let alone the understanding, to tackle these real world challenges. He'll give a speech or two, declare victory then go back to bashing Republicans.

To be fair, Obama isn't the first American president to be fooled by a despot who said the right things and acted differently. Franklin Roosevelt accepted Stalin's promise that the countries of Eastern Europe would be free after the war to decide their own fate. He didn't live to see his mistake. Obama, who likens himself to FDR when he's not comparing himself to Lincoln or Reagan has had five years to figure out that talk is cheap and actions really do speak louder.

Unfortunately, Obama has never likened himself to Teddy Roosevelt. He doesn't understand "speak softly but carry a big stick." Instead, he speaks A LOT and tosses the stick away. Our strategic competitors around the world are taking us for fools and laughing all the while at the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. War, bloodshed and more violence are the consequences of Obama's inability to tell friend from foe.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Obama Negotiates with Iran by Phone While Key Adviser Rejects Negotiationg with Republicans who are "people with a bomb strapped to their chest."

Perhaps Obama and key aides have forgotten the hundreds of Americans killed by Iranian backed terrorism!

When House Speaker Boehner's office released a video suggesting Obama would rather negotiate with America's enemies rather than Republicans some people might have thought Boehner went too far. But then on Friday Obama had a 15 minute phone call with the President of Iran and later repeated the dubious promises that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. Just like the Syrian crisis, problem solved right?

The day before Obama cozied up to the regime in Tehran which persists in holding rallies where they shout "DEATH TO AMERICA" and which has direct links to the killing of hundreds of Americans (1,2,3), Obama's Senior White House adviser for Communications Dan Pfieffer was on CNN saying that Obama would not negotiate with House Republicans. Pfieffer said "what we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest."

[side note: Imagine the hell that would break loose if top GOP officials said the same thing about Obama.]

Perhaps we should ask the widows and orphans of American troops murdered by Iranian backed suicide bombers what they think about this attitude in the White House which paints Americans as terrorist villains and seems to accept at face value the lies told by terrorist regimes.

If Obama can't tell the difference between a Republican with a difference of opinion on domestic issues and a terrorist regime which murders Americans then he isn't qualified to be Commander in Chief!

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Sen. John McCain Doesn't Know Who His Friends Are

He's been a tool of the center left establishment for far too long. It's time for him to retire and let someone who has a clue take over!

Conservatives were cheering the fighting spirit of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) yesterday as he waged his filibuster style effort to awaken the nation to the danger of ObamaCare. What a shame Cruz wasn't in the Senate when the original ObamaCare bill was rammed through in the middle of the night on Christmas eve. We might have been spared but now even some Democrats are calling a "train wreck."

But for some strange reason, Sen. John McCain (R?-AZ) couldn't let a great moment like this go without trying to steal the limelight and tarnish Cruz's effort. After Cruz had finished, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT-NV) put John McCain front and center to deliver what many feel was the Democrat response to Cruz's talkathon.

McCain insisted that since Obama was re-elected that the issue of ObamaCare was settled. He said "I think all of us should respect the outcome of elections, which reflects the will of the people." For that statement he is being lauded by far left progressives, the same people who would never vote for McCain no matter what.

Rush Limbaugh asks if Democrats had the same "he won" attitude when George Bush was re-elected in 2004? Did they all of a sudden drop their opposition to the Iraq war? No, they doubled down on obstructing Bush at every turn and retook the House in 2006.

McCain obviously forgets that the people who re-elected him to the U.S. Senate and who also sent Cruz, Rubio, Lee, Paul and so many other Republican freshmen members of that body did so specifically to fight ObamaCare with all their might.

The Same Reason McCain lost in 2008!

McCain just doesn't seem to know who his friends are. He constantly attacks members of his own party who take a stronger stand on the issues than he does and makes common cause with Democrats. In the run up to the 2008 election pundits praised McCain's "maverick" style and said that was exactly what Republicans needed to appeal to moderates and independents to help win the presidential election. How did that work out? The same with Romney in 2012.

McCain is hinting that he may retire in 2016. I'd say either he do so or run again as Democrat. Obviously he's more comfortable in that party than the GOP. We need more Senators like Cruz who are willing to fight and fewer like McCain who continue to stand by and let Democrats roll over us!

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Ted Cruz: Finally a Conservative Willing to Fight #makedclisten

It's the go along to get along, don't rock the boat attitude that got us into this mess. Now, we're fighting back!

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) No More Mr. Nice Guy

I can't tell you how many times I have had fellow conservatives ask me when elected GOP officials are going to stop playing nice and actually fight back. Well, that day has finally arrived. Senator Ted Cruz, instantly demonized by the left despite his Harvard Law Review background (remember when that meant Obama was qualified to lead) and graduating magna cum laude (we don't know what Obama's grades were), is leading the "we're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" wing of the GOP.

His talkathon in the U.S. Senate started on Tuesday afternoon and lasted more than 21 hours. He used the occasion to highlight the nightmare of ObamaCare. Reading letters from individuals who have had their work hours cut, their insurance canceled or their costs skyrocket, he forced the issue to the top of the national discussion.

Those paying attention to this slow motion disaster called ObamaCare may already be aware that thousands of small and large businesses are cutting back on workers and hours to cut costs and avoid the tentacles of ObamaCare (list). Major companies like UPS are dropping spousal coverage costing families thousands more for health care. Walgreens, IBM, Sears, Home Depot all are changing the coverage currently available to employees. Many are being dumped on ObamaCare. For many, especially the young, the cost of insurance will skyrocket.

So much for Obama's repeated promises that if you like your plan you can keep it and you'll save money!

Among the stories of individual Americans negatively impacted by ObamaCare, Senator Cruz also shared this letter from the Teamsters Union:
Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Note that Hoffa said "We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute." Democrats like Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) has also called on Republicans to help fix ObamaCare. Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow any GOP fixes for ObamaCare in the current spending bill, even the ones Democrats say they support. Instead, Reid dictates that only one amendment (his) will be considered to the House spending bill under consideration. That amendment will strip defunding ObamaCare from the House bill.

Democrats like Obama often claim to want to work with the other side to find the best solutions but here again, every GOP input is blocked using raw, partisan hammer tactics. Is it any wonder that Sen. Cruz and so many other GOP freshmen Senators are standing up to say ENOUGH?

Cruz and other GOP fighters may well lose this fight. Conservatives are still outnumbered in the Senate and Obama threatens to veto any bill that defunds ObamaCare. But that's no reason for the GOP to roll over and let Dems have their way, AGAIN. Cruz's effort puts Dems on the spot and shines a light on their partisan intransigence. Above all else, it reminds Americans who are suffering the negative consequences of ObamaCare who is responsible!

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Obama, Narcissist in Chief, Can't Get Beyond Own Ego and Work with GOP

I guess when you believe yourself to be on the same plane as the Second Coming of Christ you don't think you have to work with others!

I get a little tired of these stories because there have been SO MANY over the past five years. But we do need to document the depths of Obama's narcissism since it has a direct bearing on his inability to lead and govern.

In this latest example Obama was attacking Republicans AGAIN in a speech at a Ford Motor plant in Missouri when he talked about Congress:
OBAMA: "The debate that going on in Congress is not meeting the test of helping middle-class families. It’s just they're not focused on you. They're focused on politics. They're focused on trying to mess with me. They're not focused on you. They're not focused on you.'
"They're focused on trying to mess with me." Really? Is this man so in love with the sound of his own voice that he can't understand that there are LEGITIMATE differences of opinion on major policy that is not all about him?

And as far as him being focused on the Middle Class, it's all just words. His policies are destroying the Middle Class at the same time his big Wall Street and Hollywood buddies are raking in the cash in record amounts.

Pelosi: Obama "Eloquent," "Non Partisan," "Brilliant"

As if that weren't enough to make you understand why Washington is so dysfunctional, House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi, one of the dumbest women ever to have a seat in Congress (although it's a close tie with Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), said this:
Throughout a 50-minute interview on Thursday in her second-floor Capitol office, where the late Speaker Tip O’Neill used to receive supplicants, Pelosi was sharply derisive about the scorn Republicans have for this president.

“You know why it is,” she said. “You know why it is. He’s brilliant, … he thinks in a strategic way in how to get something done … and he’s completely eloquent. That’s a package that they don’t like.”…

Then she added a line that she has used before, that drives Republicans batty: “He has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution. I think that’s one of the reasons the Republicans want to take him down politically, because they know he is a nonpartisan president, and that’s something very hard for them to cope with.”
The only chance Republicans have to clean out this cesspool of stupid sociopaths is to stay united and fight to win another big midterm victory in 2016!

Friday, September 20, 2013

Video: Obama will Negotiate with America's Enemies but NOT House Republicans

Plus, do you want Uncle Sam giving you your next health care exam?

From House Speaker John Boehner:



I suppose Obama is just being consistent. He will cozy up to America's enemies at the same time he attacks Republicans and seeks to deny Tea Party Americans their right to organize!

On a related note, with those applying for ObamaCare being asked about everything from the their sex life to voter registration all with former ACORN community organizers with access to their vital information (with privacy concerns that dwarf the NSA scandal) people are right to be concerned about how signing up for ObamaCare will impact the most personal aspect of their lives; health care.

A new series of ads highlights the issue:



There's one for men too.

Do you REALLY want Uncle Sam in that exam room with you?

Left Wing Fascists Destroy 9/11 Memorial at Vermont College

Another left winger who thinks her rights to free speech trump yours!

Left Wing fascist caught RED handed destroying 9/11 flag memorial at Middlebury College.
From the Addison County (Vermont) Independent Emphasis mine:
MIDDLEBURY — A memorial on the Middlebury College campus to those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was vandalized this past Wednesday, shocking many on campus.

A leader of a group that pulled up 2,977 American flags placed in the lawn between Mead Chapel and the Davis Family Library told the Addison Independent in an exclusive interview that she had no regrets for her actions, saying she found the display offensive to Native Americans.

The flag memorial has been a tradition on campus for at least six years. It is coordinated by the college’s Democratic and Republican groups.

Shortly after 2:30 p.m. this past Wednesday, junior Benjamin Harris was leaving class when he observed five people removing the flags from the lawn and placing them in plastic garbage bags. Harris, co-president of the college Republicans, and five other students had spent two hours setting up the memorial the previous evening.

At first, Harris thought the individuals were moving the flags out of the rain, as inclement weather was expected that afternoon. When he realized this was not the case, he confronted them.

Harris asked why they were tearing up the flags. When he told the individuals the memorial was commemorating those who died in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., during the attacks, he said one of them responded, “You’re commemorating the wrong deaths.”

The person continued, “This monument stands for American imperialism and we’re confiscating it.”

Middlebury College senior Julia Madden also witnessed the vandalism and approached the protesters at the same time Harris did.

“They said it was disrespectful to the Abenaki (native American peoples),” Madden said. “I told them they were being disrespectful to the victims of 9/11.”

Madden suggested the memorial be relocated as a compromise to both parties. The protesters refused. Madden said Harris asked if he could at least have the flags back, as his group had purchased them. The protesters refused.

Harris was able to forcibly take one of the garbage bags, but the group fled the area with the other. UPDATE Harris said the second bag of flags were anonymously returned to him in a box Monday night.

“I felt angry and offended,” Madden said. “It was surprising to me that on a campus that’s supposed to foster discussion about different points of view, someone would think their cause is better than another.”
Note the quote: “This monument stands for American imperialism and we’re confiscating it.” We live in a very dangerous world when one group of people take in on themselves to decide what speech (as this memorial represents), especially political speech is appropriate and what is not. But then perhaps we shouldn't be surprised as fascist liberals want to dictate everything from the names of football teams (no more Redskins) to who should be allowed to speak or teach on a college campus. The hounding of retired General David Petraeus at City University of New York (CUNY) is just the most recent example.

The Founding Fathers realized the danger of allowing political speech to be curtailed by one group. But then, left wing fascists don't recognize the gifts the Founding Fathers bequeathed this country. If Karl Marx had said it they might believe it!

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Fed Policy Pumps Billions More to Aide Wall Street Fat Cats

Meanwhile, the little people Obama claims to care about pay the price!

On Wednesday Obama continued the attack on Republicans he started two days earlier in the midst of the Navy Yard shooting. This time he referred to " extreme Republicans in Congress" who are "playing reckless political games with our economy." Calling GOP representatives names. That's always a great way to encourage them to work with the president!

On the same day Obama is making another vicious partisan attack on Republicans, the Federal Reserve announces that it intends to continue the policy of quantitative easing in which money is printed (actually just made up) to buy bonds and prop up the stock market. Predictably the stock market soared to record highs. That's great news for millionaires and billionaires. The very same group of people who have grown richer under Obama economic policy while the Middle Class and poor lose ground.

It's no wonder that the income gap between rich and poor is the biggest in one hundred years.

Not only are the Middle Class and poor not benefiting from stock market gains, but monetary policy under Obama means what little money people in these groups have is worth less. The Federal Reserve is boosting the market aftificially. But doing so has consequences. The value of the dollar is tumbling and that effects a range of goods like the price of oil. Millionaires and billionaires will get their stock market gains but the rest of use will pay more at the gas pump.

The price of food, clothing and other essentials will also continue to rise. Any savings will be worth less. That's the true cost of this monetary policy and it impacts the poor and Middle Class the hardest.

So, next time Obama claims "extreme Republicans" are "playing reckless political games with our economy" take a look at your dwindling savings, high gas and food prices and remember that it's not the Republicans who are destroying the value of your hard earned dollar!

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Obama Pivots from Syrian Spectacle to Favorite Pasttime: Bashing Republicans

And he uses such hyperpartisan language on the same day a mass shooting happens in DC. What a way to bring people together at a time of tragedy hunh?

Obama's done with Syria. It was as sure loser for him but like every other challenge we face (the economy *cough, cough*) Obama gives a speech and that's supposed to be the end of it. No matter that Assad will not be punished for using chemical weapons. No matter if any chemical weapons are actually destroyed. We may never find all the weapons. Reports are some are even moving to Iraq, perhaps where they came from in the first place.

Assad is free to kill another 100,000 Syrians, he just better not use gas. So what if more stories of whole villages wiped out, men, women, children, surface. Assad's forces are butchering mothers as they clutch their infants but who cares? Obama's washed his hands of the mess and now he can get back to doing what he does best: campaigning and blaming the Republicans for everything.

William Murchison at the American Spectator points out that last week Obama took a pause in the GOP bashing as it looked like he might need some Republican votes for his war authorization vote in Congress. Now that's off the table (and no one seriously thinks that it will be back on the table when we find out the Syrians did NOT comply with the agreement to destroy their chemicals) Obama is free once again to play the hyperpartisan role he does better than any President in living memory.

On the same day the Navy Yard shooter murdered 12 Americans Obama gave another speech in which he said this about the GOP:
Republicans in Congress don’t seem to be focused on how to grow the economy and build the middle class. I say “at the moment” because I’m still hoping that a light bulb goes off here…

I cannot remember a time when one faction of one party promises economic chaos if it can’t get 100 percent of what it wants.…

[A]re some of these folks really so beholden to one extreme wing of their party they’re willing to tank the entire economy just because they can’t get their way on this issue?
Obama was reacting to GOP efforts to contain ObamaCare before the highly unpopular plan, clearly not ready for prime time, is foisted on the American people. Democrats appeal to GOP lawmakers to help fix the plan but it's difficult to see how the two sides can work together when Obama continues to attack the GOP with such vehemence.

Obama was also reacting to the news that under his Administration, the wealthier have gotten even more wealthy and more Americans now consider themselves lower class. Perhaps his latest hyperpartisan ranting is designed to keep Americans from connecting the dots to the source of these issues which has been HIS POLICY. Obama's war on jobs, of which ObamaCare is a key ingredient, and his economic and fiscal policy that rewards his campaign cronies at the expense of average Americans is not something he wants to talk about. Far better to bash the GOP with the same shopworn rhetoric than face accountability for his actions.

Obama's fear is that after the reckless emptiness of his Syrian policy was exposed to near universal ridicule his similar faults and weaknesses on domestic policy might also be revealed. So, it's back to the blame game, give another speech and hope no one notices the predictably poor results!

Disconnect: DC Shooter Suffered Mental Illness and Obsessed with Violent Video Games

So naturally, Democrats call for more gun control?
  • Aaron Alexis: Washington navy yard gunman 'obsessed with violent video games'
  • Officials: Gunman treated for mental health issues
For all the usual Democrats talking points about stronger background checks for gun owners it's important to note that the shooter in this case had a Top Secret clearance which requires a very rigorous and detailed investigation into the individual before being granted. He also used a shotgun, which is a gun not even Democrats propose to ban and is thought to have taken handguns off guards at the base.

Just like the Sandy Hook school shooting and Aurora Colorado the instant focus by Democrats on guns glosses over the real "trigger" here. Since the Sandy Hook and Aurora how many times have you heard of serious proposals being advanced to deal with the underlying mental health issues? How many Democrats have you seen take to the stump and say we must do something about violent video games?

How many more mass shootings will we suffer before Democrats drop the political issue of gun control and focus on the underlying cause? Or is getting votes more important than results?

Monday, September 16, 2013

Russian Diplomat Says DC Shooting is America's "Exceptionalism"

Perhaps he's forgetting Russia's bloody history!\

From the Washington Post:
Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia’s parliament, seized on the shooting Monday at the Washington Navy Yard to reiterate long-standing Russian criticisms of the United States.
"Nobody’s even surprised anymore," he wrote, sarcastically describing the still-ongoing shooting as "A clear confirmation of 'American exceptionalism.'"
Here's the full tweet:
"A new shootout at Navy headquarters in Washington - a lone gunman and 7 corpses. Nobody’s even surprised anymore. A clear confirmation of "American exceptionalism."
If you're on Twitter, you might want to share a few thoughts on Russian exceptionalism with Alexi.

Beslan School massacre in Russia, 2004. Hundreds killed including 156 children.
How about this for starters:

The massacre by Islamists at Beslan in 2004 left hundreds of people dead including 156 children.

But that's nothing compared to what the Russian government itself did under Stalin when more than 20 million of it's citizens were killed in various purges and the gulags.

Yeah Alexi, America has it's problems but if we want to be proud of our exceptionalism you might be better off leaving the topic alone. I don't see anything to be proud of in Russia's bloody history!

Despite Outspending Pro Second Amendment Supporters by More Than 6 to 1 Colorado Gun Grabbers Cry Foul After Recall Loss

Dems can't accept that in a fair contest, free of fraud, the people's will is not so easily subverted!

NOTE: With all the focus on Syria, so much going on has slipped off the radar. But this story, late as I am in writing about it, is too important to ignore.

It's the sin of hubris which frequently leads Democrats to believe that they are true representatives of the will of the people. So, when in a free contest the people decide otherwise, Dems can't seem to understand it so they scream FOUL!

The best recent example of this phenomenon is the recall election last week in Colorado. Two state senators, including the Senate President. Both Democrats had rammed through a very unpopular gun control bill and did so while blocking the testimony of those opposed and alternative suggestions. Sound familiar?

A recall effort was launched by grass roots citizens in both districts but were initially viewed as unlikely to succeed. Both districts were heavily Democratic with Obama winning one by 20%. The Democrats were very well funded and enjoyed at least a 6 to 1 advantage over the challengers with a very large proportion of their funding coming from outside the state including huge support from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's group Mayor's Against Illegal Guns.

Senator Giron was so confident of a win she declared that anti-gun rights groups "if they lose even one of these seats, they might as well fold it up."  Giron lost the recall by 12% and will now be replaced by a Republican challenger. Ditto with Senate President Morse.

So, naturally former Senator Giron screamed "voter suppression" because voters were actually required to show up at the polls to vote and Dems were not able to use their full bag of tricks. Quite an ironic twist of fate since, as Allahpundit at Hot Air points out Giron and former Senator Morse did everything they could to suppress the voter's influence on the legislative process.

I won't make too much of a special election or recall result. But of course we know that had the results been different Democrats would cite it as an immediate mandate for other gun control efforts. That effort, already stalled, will continue to remain on hold after this decision. Perhaps one of these days Dems will actually consider alternatives which address the problem of gun violence without infringing the rights of law abiding citizens. At least that's the hope!

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Syria Demands U.S. Stop Supporting Rebels Before Handing Over Chem Weapons

Q: Who didn't see this coming?

A: Obama apparently.

Not that we needed further evidence that Obama is getting played like a second grader in this Syria debacle we now have this:
Syria will fulfil an initiative to hand over its chemical weapons only when the United States stops threatening to strike Syria, RIA news agency quoted President Bashar al-Assad as saying in a television interview…

“When we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack, and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists, then we will believe that the necessary processes can be finalized,” he was quoted as saying in an interview with Russian state television.
Assad basically laughs at any suggestion he hand over the chemical weapons NOW without any preconditions.

Next question: Does anyone really believe Assad will hand over his chemical weapons at all?
Anyone? Obama? Anyone?

Last question: when Obama finally realizes he's been duped, what will he do next? Blame it on Congress? Or George Bush?

From Left and Right, Reviews of Obama's Syria Speech Are Poor

Only the most committed Obama Kool Aid drinkers are still covering up for his incompetence!

Bad reviews all around for Obama's Syria speech on Tuesday. The first two are from sympathetic left of center columnists who might otherwise be regarded as on his side:

First, Dana Milbank, writing in the Washington Post noted the shifting stories and contradictions:
Kerry can be forgiven for being at odds with the president. The president, in the space of his 16-minute address, was often at odds with himself. He spent the first 12 minutes arguing for the merits of striking Syria — and then delivered the news that he was putting military action on hold.

He promised that it would be “a limited strike” without troops on the ground or a long air campaign, yet he argued that it was the sort of blow that “no other nation can deliver.” He argued that “we should not be the world’s policeman” while also saying that because of our “belief in freedom and dignity for all people,” we cannot “look the other way.” He asserted that what Bashar al-Assad did is “a danger to our security” while also saying that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.”
Next is Maureen Dowd in the New York Times:
The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about “a red line for us” — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified.

Then, there's the Associated Press "Fact Check" of Obama's speech:
OBAMA: "We know the Assad regime was responsible. ... The facts cannot be denied."

THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.

This from Joel Klein at Time:
[Obama willingly jumped into a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world. It has been one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed. The failure cuts straight to the heart of a perpetual criticism of the Obama White House: that the President thinks he can do foreign policy all by his lonesome. This has been the most closely held American foreign-policy-making process since Nixon and Kissinger, only there’s no Kissinger. There is no éminence grise—think of someone like Brent Scowcroft—who can say to Obama with real power and credibility, Mr. President, you’re doing the wrong thing here. Let’s consider the consequences if you call the use of chemical weapons a “red line.” Or, Mr. President, how can you talk about this being “the world’s red line” if the world isn’t willing to take action? Perhaps those questions, and many others, fell through the cracks as his first-term national-security staff departed and a new team came in.
...
[Obama]he has done himself, and the nation, great and unnecessary harm. The road back to credibility and respect will be extremely difficult
Keep in mind the above came from Obama's media allies. But it's not so much different than what those in the middle and from the right have to say.

Here's Ron Fournier from National Journal in a piece titled "Syria Tells You Everything You Need to Know About Barack Obama." In it he describes what he feels are the worst of the President's characteristics:
Naive about the levers of power: Where to start? Obama reversed course on congressional authorization at the last minute, after a private chat with his chief of staff, and to the surprise of his national security team--all in violation of presidential best practices. He then left the country on a quixotic trip to Russia, allowing misgivings to grow in Congress and the public before he could build a case for striking Syria. Boxed in, Obama seized upon a Russian proposal to put Syria's weapons in the hands of the international community. It's an impractical solution, a fig leaf. Either Obama trusts Russian President Vladimir Putin (a mistake) or he is a partner in deceit (an outrage). A Democratic strategist who works closely with the White House, and who requested anonymity to avoid political retribution, told me, "This has been one of the most humiliating episodes in presidential history."

Too cute by half: Obama and his allies are masters of "spin," packaging partial truths and outright distortions to a malleable public. With Syria, their dark arts are on full display. There is no other way to explain the White House disowning Secretary of State John Kerry's call for Syria to turn over its stockpiles until the savvy Putin seized on the off-the-cuff remark as a way to protect ally Bashar al-Assad. Suddenly, the White House is touting the Putin plan as their brainchild, an outcome Obama had in mind when he travelled to Russia. Don't buy it. A broader problem is the Obama White House's inability to break through the clutter of 21st century media to educate and persuade Americans on policy, a communications conundrum that dates to the 2009 health care debate.

No friends: No student of the presidency would claim that Obama's problems with Congress could be solved simply by schmoozing them. There are structural and political problems that no amount of alcohol can solve. But as a matter of history and common sense, Obama could do better for himself and his causes if he got to know Congress better--if he listened and engaged in a way that pushes leaders toward solutions that help both sides. Instead, Obama has what one former top adviser called a "check-the-box" approach to Washington relations. He'll spend enough time to maintain appearances, nothing more, and lectures people who demand to be heard. And so, as he faced an international and constitutional crisis, Obama and his team were in a familiar state: isolated, insular, and alone.
On the right, John Podhoretz, writing in the New York Post says that :
a roundelay that began with the president announcing his decision to launch a military strike at a time of his choosing to punish Assad for having used chemical weapons suddenly turned into the president and his desperate acolytes thinking they could take a victory lap!

“Thanks to Pres. Obama’s strength,” tweeted House Democratic honcho Nancy Pelosi, “we have a Russian proposal.” The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted, “Kind of amazed I’m saying this, but the White House may really be about to win on Syria.”

Ah, yes, winning. Which is to say, being humiliated, acting weak, behaving in vacillatory fashion, making a mockery of your office, destroying your country’s credibility, making your own words look desperately foolish, and ceding foreign policy to the Machiavellian machinations of a gangster regime in Moscow.

That’s what you call “winning” when what you mean by “winning” is “losing.”
From the foreign press, Nile Gardiner writing in the UK's Daily Telegraph didn't pull any punches:
Barack Obama’s Syria speech was an incoherent mess – he is outperforming Jimmy Carter as the most feeble US president of modern times.
...

This was a desperate speech from a president who has dug himself into a hole after carelessly drawing a red line in the sand, and then finding himself in the position of actually having to do something about it.
...
Barack Obama has no big picture strategy on Syria, or the wider Middle East, and is bereft of a clear game plan. His speech was also a sea of contradictions. He talked about deploying American military might but has no intention of delivering a decisive blow. He paid lip service to the ideal of American exceptionalism, but is happy to kowtow to Moscow. He urged Congress to support his approach, but wants them to wait before they vote. For these were the words of an exceptionally weak and indecisive president, one who seems to be making up policy on the hoof, as he stumbles and bumbles along on the world stage, with his hapless Secretary of State in tow.

How different to the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan, a man who led the world’s superpower with strength and conviction. The Gipper knew the meaning of American leadership, especially at times of crisis. Unfortunately President Obama can only dream of holding a candle to Reagan’s achievements, and at present is even outperforming Jimmy Carter as the most feeble US president of modern times.
Obama Kool Aid Drinkers Don't Care!

I emailed a friend who proudly, even now, supports Obama. He isn't at all concerned about what the rest of us see. He might be right that so many Americans are just so dumbed down by the media and Hollywood they don't even know what's going on and the few Obama supporters who do don't care as long as Obama is in charge.

The following video, a comedy effort in the style of an Obama campaign commercial makes that point in a humorous way. You'll want to see it:



The bottom line for many Obama supporters remains: So what if he's an incompetent bungling fool whose failure to grasp even basic strategic concepts might start a war. He's Obama and that's OK!

Monday, September 09, 2013

Will Russia's Get Out of Jail Free Card for Assad Help Obama Save Face Too?

Perhaps. But at the expense of a rational, coherent, U.S. foreign policy!

It's all politics, all the time with Obama, even when national security is at stake. So, this latest gambit by Russia's Putin to help Obama get out of the mess he created with the Syrian crisis must be viewed from that prism. Basically, take every good reason Obama gave to strike Syria and throw it out the window just because it looks like a political loser for Obama.

Gone is any hint of punishing Assad for the crime against humanity of gassing men, women and children on August 21. Gone is any hint of using the strike to contain Iran and Hezbollah. However, it's possible that the whole gambit may fall apart in which case the first two rationales will be reinstated. Obama's team basically makes it up as they go along so anything could happen.

But if the deal does go through who will be the big winner? Surely not the cause of international justice as Assad will remain in power. Obama will save face and put off the consequence of looming votes of no confidence in both the House and Senate. These votes are now on hold. But it leaves Obama looking increasingly silly and irrelevant. Not a good thing for a U.S. President.

Russia's prestige will increase along with it's presence in the region. Assad will be free to continue his civil war and neither Iran, nor Hezbollah will be constrained or warned in any way. Those are the winners in this ploy and that's the only reason Putin floated the plan after bumbling Secretary of State John Kerry left the door open. It's a Trojan Horse.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that Syria's chemical weapons would actually be confiscated. How do you do that in the middle of a civil war? And if it turns out, as it likely will, that the promise to turn over these weapons is not fulfilled what then? Russia, Syria and Iran all know that dragging this thing out means it is even less likely Obama will attack.

Once again, the junior league Obama team may pull out what looks like a short term face saving measure. But in the long run, U.S. interests, and those of world peace, will suffer!

Hillary Clinton: What Difference Would Obama's "Unbelieveably Small" Bombing in Syria Make?


Hillary has about as much credibility to talk about the U.S. bungle in Syria as she did on the murder of our Ambassador and three Americans in Libya a year ago!

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up at the White House today to try and pull Obama's bacon out of the fire. No word on whether Obama canceled his golf game to meet with Hillary but here's what she said about the Syrian crisis:
“The Assad regime’s inhuman use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent men, women and children violates a universal norm at the heart of our global order, and therefore it demands a strong response from the international community led by the United States,” Clinton said.
No word on whether any reporters asked why Hillary, as Secretary of State, labeled Syrian President Assad "a reformer." Hillary and the Obama Administration turned a blind eye to what was happening in Syria, just as they have to the disaster in Egypt, Iran and elsewhere. I'm just surprised that Hillary didn't repeat her performance before a Congressional committee when she dismissed the failure of the Obama Administration's effort that led to the deaths of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Libya by saying "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

All of a sudden 100,000 dead Syrians, some killed by poison gas makes a difference to Hillary? Nice to know there is a limit to her indifference.

Meanwhile, Hillary's replacement as Secretary of State, John Kerry promised that any bombing of Syria would be "[an] unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.

I wonder "WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE" for us to launch an "unbelievable small" bombing campaign?

Saturday, September 07, 2013

"Australia Under New Management" Big Win for Conservatives Down Under

Lowest vote total for the socialist Labor Party in 100 years!

 After six years of failed socialist policies, a conservative coalition swept to power in Australia on Saturday with a huge majority. Tony Abbot, incoming Prime Minister promised to sweep away all the left wing nonsense, including the global warming carbon tax. If only we had a parliamentary system in the United States. We could get rid of ObamaCare overnight!

Listen to jubilant Aussie conservatives as Mr. Abbot declares "the government of Australia has changed:"


Abbott: "Australia is under new management."

Abbott also declared that "the time for campaigning is over. The time for governing has arrived." What a shame the President of the United States doesn't understand the importance of that statement.

Perhaps this result will portend change in the U.S. Our victory in 2014 and 2016 will be all the sweeter for the waiting. Australia is leading the way!

Friday, September 06, 2013

U.S. in Full Revolt Against Obama's Unfocused Plan of Attack in Syria

If only we could have had a discussion on leadership in last year's presidential election we might have avoided this sorry spectacle!
Senator Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”
— Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, September 3
[Note: Before you delve into today's update, please make sure you read the opening paragraphs from yesterday's post describing my view on the strategic question.]

I wonder if CNN's Candy Crowley feels any remorse for covering Obama's behind in the presidential debate last fall. It was she who supported Obama in the misleading claim he understood the attack on our embassy in Benghazi a year ago to be a terrorist attack. Crowley's intervention essentially blunted Romney's attempt to raise the issue of leadership and a grasp of strategic issues that might have been possible had she not inserted herself into the debate.

Now, we are stuck with Obama and those key unanswered questions about leadership and strategic understanding are coming back to haunt us. Seeing the confusion and chaos surrounding Obama's foreign and national security policy the American people do not have confidence Obama is competent to lead on the important question of war in Syria.

Peggy Noonan put it this way:
What are the American people thinking? Probably some variation of: Wrong time, wrong place, wrong plan, wrong man.
...
Is Barack Obama a war president? On Syria he has done nothing to inspire confidence. Up to the moment of decision, and even past it, he has seemed ambivalent, confused, unaware of the implications of his words and stands. From the "red line" comment to the "shot across the bow," from the White House leaks about the nature and limits of a planned strike to the president's recent, desperate inclusion of Congress, he has seemed consistently over his head.
Charles Krauthammer, who cites the exchange between Sen. Corker and Gen. Dempsey above concludes:
Assad has to go, says Obama, and then lifts not a finger for two years. Obama lays down a red line, and then ignores it. Shamed finally by a massive poison-gas attack, he sends Kerry to make an impassioned case for righteous and urgent retaliation — and the very next day, Obama undermines everything by declaring an indefinite timeout to seek congressional approval.

This stunning zigzag, following months of hesitation, ambivalence, contradiction, and studied delay, left our regional allies shocked and our enemies gleeful.
...
There’s no strategy, no purpose here other than helping Obama escape self-inflicted humiliation.

This is deeply unserious. Unless Obama can show the country that his don’t-mock-me airstrike is, in fact, part of a serious strategy for altering the trajectory of the Syrian war, Congress should vote no.
Should Obama "listen to the generals?"

It was a Democrat mantra during the most difficult period of the Iraq war that President Bush should
"listen to the generals." Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) echoed the phrase at every available opportunity. Will Obama listen to the generals now or is this yet another example of wise words that only apply when Republicans are in the White House?

Writing in the Washington Post, retired Army Major General Scales writes an op-ed titled "A war the Pentagon doesn’t want:"
After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
...
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us.
Obama's Answer to Critics: More Bombs, but Still No Strategy!

Apparently stung by the criticism that he's an incompetent, reckless fool Obama has ordered the Pentagon to expand the target list for bombing in Syria.  Unless he's planning to target Hezbollah and Iranian forces in Syria I doubt it makes much difference to the strategic equation.

Revolt in Congress Mirrors Citizen Lack of Confidence in Obama Leadership

Stories are coming in of strong protest in town hall meetings with congressional leaders. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who joined with Obama in effort to attack Syria faced protests at a meeting in Arizona. Same with Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and others across the country. Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) initially supported  a U.S. strike on Syria. Now, "Grimms says he has 'lost faith' in President Obama to handle the crisis 'appropriately.'"

As votes loom in Congress, it doesn't look good for Obama. The Washington Post has the count. Visit the Post count page and wave your cursor over circles with black dot to see latest statement from individual Senator or Represenatative.

 photo Capture_zpsae24c58f.png
 photo Captured_zps83d5132c.png

Will Speaker Boehner Save Obama from Himself?

As noted above, both Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid did everything they could to undermine President Bush at key moments during the Iraq war. Yet, now that it looks like Obama is in real trouble, Speaker Boeher (R-OH) has put aside partisan differences to support the President. But Boehner does have some serious questions for Obama and as yet, they have not been answered.

With Obama set to address the nation on Tuesday, it's an open question whether the President can turn opposition to his proposed actions around and avoid a vote of no confidence in Congress. If not, GOP leaders may help him avoid embarrassment by pulling the vote altogether. In my view, that would be unfortunate.

But do file this example under the heading "no, both sides don't do it." Despite immense protest GOP leaders in both the House and Senate have offered support to the President. Do you think Dem leaders will return the favor when the next Republican is in the White House?

Obama, the butt of jokes

From Jay Leno monologues [video]:
"If President Obama really wants to hurt the Syrian government, don’t send cruise missiles. He should end over some of his economic advisers." -Jay Leno

"President Obama is asking Congress to support a military strike in Syria. If they approve, it will be the first time Congress has officially declared war since Obamacare." –Jay Leno

"All week president Obama has been saying he will seek congressional approval for the strike but he insists he doesn't really need it. When asked by the media if he was sending mixed messages, the president said: 'Yes and no.'" –Jay Leno

"President Obama says the lack of response to Syria so far does not threaten his credibility. And you know something, he's right. The economy, Benghazi, the spying scandal – that threatens his credibility, but this other stuff, no." –Jay Leno
The Bottom Line:  For me, less support for strike

Personally, I'm still on the fence about a strike on Syria. If I had the slightest confidence Obama understood the strategic questions and was prepared to lead the country to see this through I would back him. Unfortunately, as of now, that appears less likely, not more so.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Obama's Syrian Psychosis Continues

Few have any confidence that Obama understands, let alone has the capacity to lead, on the great strategic questions underlying Syrian action!

Strike Syria Yea or Nay?

Before I get to the politics of this story, a word about the strategic question:

There is a strong case to be made that failure for the U.S. to act in Syria would by default hand a victory to Syria's Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies who would also be emboldened while U.S. credibility suffers. But failure to act effectively, would result in the same negative consequences. The problem is that few people think Obama capable and competent to lead an effective response that enhances our strategic national interests. Obama talks about a "shot across the bow" type of strike that would do nothing to alter the strategic equation in favor of U.S. interests.

Even if we were to engage in a more robust military campaign, there is grave concern that Obama would follow up that action with the requisite attention necessary to preserve any short term gains.
Just look at Egypt and Libya as two examples. In both cases Obama tossed the establishment order under the bus but failed to provide the necessary leadership to assure it's replacement was in line with U.S. interests.

Considering the above, should we strike or not? I fully agree we can have little faith in Obama's ability to lead or to understand the strategic issues. But in this case, I see consequences that are equally bad if we do nothing. My own thought is that we err on the side of action and just hope for the best. For me to be more assured would mean leadership from Obama and that takes us to the political dimension....

Obama: No Red Line from Me, Congress's Credibility, not mine, on the line

You won't find a better example of Obama's inability to lead and why he foments distrust than the statement he made in Stockholm, Sweden on Wednesday.


OBAMA: "I didn't set a red line,"..."my credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress' credibility is on the line."

Here's the full exchange:
STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That's point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.
While it's technically true that the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons is a norm of the international community, it was Obama who invoked this "red line" and did so in a very direct, even personal way a year ago. Perhaps had he acted then on the knowledge that the Syrians were using chemical weapons we might have avoided the much larger slaughter which followed.

But then to go and repeatedly blame Congress for this mess is beyond absurd. Someone should remind Obama that HE is the Commander in Chief, not Congress. His remarks seem more tuned to political arguments than a discussion of the merits of strategic questions. It used to be that politics stopped at the water's edge. But with so many other rules for civil discourse that too only applies to Republicans. Obama is free to engage in political activity overseas and you won't hear a word of complaint coming from the same media that would jump all over any Republican doing the same.

If Obama managed the UN and our British allies with the same heavy handed tactics he is now directing at Congress, it's no wonder the world has bailed out on supporting his leadership!

The Political Dimension

Obama's statement in Stockholm confirms what Kimberly Strassel suggested earlier in the Wall Street Journal. She surmises that the political dimension to this crisis is the prime driver for Obama, not national security. I agree.

Obama's attempt to put this on Congress is part of a campaign orchestrated by newly formed team of current and former Obama campaign aides. The photo op on Labor Day with Senators John McCain (A-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was the first visible sign of his strategy:

 photo 60656778-299c-422a-a067-ea14a1ba2e7f_zps11526a57.jpg

Both McCain and Graham are essential if Obama wants to persuade Republicans to support a congressional resolution authorizing action against Syria. But there's guarantee that any action Obama takes will meet the strategic requirements understood by the two Senators. Also, wouldn't it have been something if Senator Graham had turned to Susan Rice, Sitting near McCain, and asked who was it that told you to blame a You Tube video for the Benghazi attack a year ago? Also, Graham could have asked Obama what he was doing the night of the attack. Oh well, another opportunity lost to get to the truth!

While we are doing photos, I can't help but include the following...

Remember how the Dems howled about Donald Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein in 1983 in the run-up to the Iraq War? The suggestion is that Rumsfeld and the Republicans were hypocrites, or worse, for supporting Saddam 20 years earlier in his war against Iraq then later trying to destroy him.

So, turnabout is fair play. Just four years ago then Senator Kerry dined with Syria's Assad in Damascus. Kerry was a frequent visitor to Syria and called Assad a "reformer."  Four years later he's a monster?

 photo article-2408805-1B94E57D000005DC-22_634x397_zpsc2a10f8e.jpg
Senator and Mrs. John Kerry dine with President Assad and wife in Syria in 2009.

And who can forget Nancy Pelosi. As House Speaker, she made a very public trip to Damascus in 2007 which undermined Bush Administration efforts to contain Syria. Assad supporters hailed Pelosi as a "friend to Syria" and a "hero."


Oh for the good old days when the adults were in charge!

Bush managed to bring Congress, UN, and much of the world with us in
great moments. He did so by exercising leadership and accepting responsibility!
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator