Washington Post Editorial, "Hillary Clinton smartly distances herself from Obama": Blowing Smoke Up Hillary's Ass

Tweet

The etymology of "blowing smoke up your ass"? Back in the 18th century, there was a popular medical device called a tobacco smoke enema, which was used to resuscitate drowning victims. However, it was ultimately discovered that blowing tobacco smoke into dead persons arses had no medical benefit, and from there, "blowing smoke up your ass" was born, i.e. telling someone a lie that she/he wants to hear.

Well today, in an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton smartly distances herself from Obama," The Washington Post blows smoke up Hillary's arse. WaPo would have us know concerning Hillary's position on Syria:

"Ms. Clinton has a strong claim to express her differences with Mr. Obama, since it’s well-known that she argued them privately during her time in the administration, especially about how to handle Syria. (She favored more substantial U.S. support to dictator Bashar al-Assad’s opposition early in the popular uprising that has since devolved into civil war.) Not only that, but it’s clear from events in Paris that any progress Mr. Obama’s approach has achieved so far — and there has been some — is insufficient to stop the Islamic State from sowing terror far beyond the Middle East. Finally, the measures Ms. Clinton endorsed, such as safe zones, directly arming Kurdish and Sunni tribal forces if the Iraqi government won’t, and a more aggressive use of airstrikes and Special Operations forces, enjoy the backing of many military experts."

Excuse me, boys and girls, but how do you make such a claim without mention of Hillary's March 27, 2011  "Face the Nation" interview (massive protests against the Assad regime had begun two weeks earlier), during which she declared:

"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

Assad a reformer? As the Washington Post's own Glenn Kessler subsequently wrote in a "Fact Checker" column entitled "Hillary Clinton’s uncredible statement on Syria," in which he gave Hillary three Pinocchios:

"Hillary Clinton is known for making provocative statements, but few have generated such a firestorm as her comment last week that the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, may be a reformer. She made her remarks after 'Face the Nation' host Bob Schieffer noted that Assad’s late father had killed 25,000 people during an uprising against his regime. Clinton responded by noting that the son was now in power and he was a 'different leader.'

Lawmakers and columnists quickly condemned her remarks. So two days later Clinton tried to deflect the criticism by telling reporters she was only referencing 'the opinions' of lawmakers who had met with Assad and that she was not speaking for the administration. But then she added: 'We’re also going to continue to urge that the promise of reform, which has been made over and over again and which you reported on just a few months ago – I’m a reformer, I’m going to reform, and I’ve talked to members of Congress and others about that, that we hear from the highest levels of leadership in Syria – will actually be turned into reality.'

. . . .

Throughout the Middle East uprisings, Clinton has had trouble calibrating her comments to the mood of the moment, such as when she pronounced the Mubarak regime to be 'stable' and 'looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.' Days later, Mubarak was gone.

We grant that we have no way of really knowing what lawmakers may have said privately to Clinton. But there is only a small universe of GOP senators and members of Congress who have recently traveled to Syria — 13 or so — and the word 'many' would suggest at least half of those traveling."

The Mubarak regime was "stable"? "There is a different leader in Syria now"? Spare me.

Regarding today's Washington Post editorial, I would also mention in passing that Hillary cannot even bring herself to say the words "radical Islam."

I would also mention that Hillary was instrumental in bringing about Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, after she recommended allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran, Assad's primary backer, to continue to enrich uranium as part of the said deal. Obama's passivity over the years toward Assad was in no way linked to his desperation to reach a legacy-creating nuclear deal with Khamenei? The answer is obvious. Worse still, Iranian fighter jets are now flying over Syria, creating a powder keg of Gargantuan dimensions, given their proximity to American and Israeli aircraft.

Bottom line: Hillary's foreign policy recommendations have proven no more substantive or consistent than smoke in the wind (or tobacco smoke blown into a corpse's arse). The Washington Post's editorial board should know better than to foist such nonsense upon us.

John Kerry: I Never Heard the Term "Anytime, Anywhere"

Tweet


US Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz had a remarkable interview on "Face the Nation" yesterday concerning the disastrous nuclear deal struck with Iran. As reported by CBS News:

"In an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" that aired Sunday, Kerry argued that having 'anytime, anywhere' access to all of Iran's nuclear sites was 'not on the table' and a term 'I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating' - even though, as host John Dickerson pointed out, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in April that the international community would have 'anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access.'

'This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. It was not on the table. There's no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere. There isn't any nation in the world, none that has an anytime, anywhere,' Kerry said. 'We always were negotiating was an end to the interminable delays that people had previously.'"

Yeah, right. Kerry was unaware that in an interview with Jake Tapper on April 6, 2015, Ben Rhodes declared, "under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has"? Even Moniz acknowledged his use of the term, albeit with qualifications, during the "Face the Nation" interview.

But more to the point, why shouldn't "anytime, anywhere" have been "on the table"? If in fact it wasn't "on the table," John ("Assad is my dear friend") Kerry doesn't have a clue how to negotiate a deal and should resign immediately.

Fred Hiatt, "The defense of inaction in Syria": Read This Opinion Piece!

Also read "New Book, 'Clinton Cash,' Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation"


You will recall that yesterday I wrote:

"Heck, before campaigning as a woman, Hillary first needs to figure out how to behave like a human being. Forget the bullshit sniper fire in Bosnia. Ignore Benghazi and 'What difference at this point does it make?' Overlook 'Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs.' And put the 30,000 emails she recently deleted on a back burner. Instead, concentrate for just a moment on a Newsweek article of today's date entitled "Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran" by Rory Ross."

Or stated otherwise, Hillary has a humongous problem involving cash donations to the Clinton Foundation, and more to the point, she should not be running for president of the United States.

Well today, I have two must-reads for you: a New York Times article entitled "New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation" by Amy Chozick, and a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The defense of inaction in Syria," by Fred Hiatt.

First, a few words about the Times article. "Clinton Cash" will not be available in bookstores until May 5, but the Times has already gotten hold of a copy, and Times reporter Chozick labels the book "the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy." Chozick further tells us:

"The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

. . . .

'Clinton Cash' is potentially more unsettling [than other recent books about the Clintons], both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

. . . .

And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job."

"Another conservative hit job"? Good luck. It will prove extremely difficult to dismiss investigative reporting by the Times and WaPo as conservative hit jobs, and ultimately the Democrats, nearing election day in 2016, could find themselves without a candidate.

Which brings me to Hiatt's opinion piece concerning Obama's indifference to a humanitarian disaster in Syria. WaPo editorial page editor Hiatt writes:

"I don’t mean that Obama is the first president to stand by as atrocities unfold. He is not. Just as Obama has watched passively as Syria has unraveled, with hundreds of thousands killed and more than 11 million — half the nation — displaced, so President Bill Clinton did nothing to stop genocide in Rwanda, and President George W. Bush failed to stop the depredations in the Darfur region of Sudan.

But Clinton expressed remorse for his inaction in Rwanda. Americans in churches and synagogues demanded that Bush take steps to 'save Darfur.' The political will was lacking, but there was at least a sense of unease, even shame, that the United States would stand aside as so many innocents were slaughtered.

Syria’s four-year-long descent into hell, amply foretold and arguably the most preventable of the three calamities, has prompted little such soul-searching."

What does any of this have to do with Hillary? Simple. You will recall Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying of Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad on "Face the Nation" in March 2011:

"There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

Maybe these words will also come back to haunt Hillary, unless absolutely nothing sticks to this Teflon lady.

Regarding Obama's inaction involving Syria, Hiatt writes:

"Obama has had multiple opportunities to take actions that might have prevented the crimes against humanity that continue today."

But if Obama had taken action, he would have ruffled the feathers of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, who is Assad's primary benefactor. This, in turn, would have stood in the way of a nuclear agreement with Tehran, which in turn would have cost Obama his "legacy."

But this does not excuse Hillary's indifference as Obama's secretary of state to the abominations occurring in Syria.

Is $2.5 billion, the amount to be spent by Hillary to become president, sufficient to frighten away better qualified Democratic candidates and hoodwink the American electorate? Stay tuned . . .

Is John Kerry to Be Awarded an Honorary Doctorate From Clown School?

You can't make this stuff up:

On Sunday, John Kerry told "Face the Nation":

"The Russians, who are not our usual allies, released a statement saying that what we have put out in terms of our information [i.e. fact sheet] is both reliable and accurate."

Well today, Kerry called Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to complain about Moscow's decision to sell advanced S-300 air-defense systems to Iran. Lavrov is claiming that the Lausanne "framework understanding" makes the sale permissible. Kerry disagrees.

I guess that Kerry and Lavrov are not on the same page concerning the American fact sheet after all.

Moreover, you can be certain that if Iran violates a final nuclear agreement, the Russians will be there to help reinstate, i.e. "snap back" as Obama puts it, sanctions . . . not. Why won't the Russians agreen to reinstate sanctions? Because the end of sanctions is what will allow Iran to pay for its expensive new Russian air defense systems.

No, John, you're not in line for a Nobel Peace Prize; however, you just might be receiving in the mail an honorary doctorate from clown school.

Obama Offers "Extraordinarily Reasonable Deal" to an Extraordinarily Barbaric Iranian Regime

On Sunday, Obama declared on "Face the Nation" concerning the nuclear agreement he is negotiating with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei:

"Over the next month or so, we’re going to be able to determine whether or not [Iran's] system is able to accept what would be an extraordinarily reasonable deal, if in fact, as they say, they are only interested in peaceful nuclear programs."

Yup, in order to test Iran's intentions, Obama is offering an "extraordinarily reasonable deal" to a regime that stones to death women accused of adultery, hangs homosexuals, and persecutes Kurds, Baha'is, Sunni Muslims and Christians.

Regrettably, Khamenei is not a "reasonable" man, and he is not interested in a "reasonable" deal. After more than six years as president, the first invertebrate to inhabit the Oval Office still doesn't get it.

During his "Face the Nation" interview, Obama further stated:

"If there's no deal, then we walk away."

If nothing else, Netanyahu's speech before Congress is forcing Obama to talk tough.

However, after providing Khamenei with some $7 billion of sanctions relief in 2014 in order to bring Iran's Supreme Leader to the negotiating table, Obama is only now threatening to "walk away."

Again, unbeknownst to Obama, but as known to all his P5+1 partners, particularly Russia (which is holding joint naval exercises with Iran) and China (which is also pursuing a naval alliance with Tehran), the horse is already out of the barn.

Iran: Obama Is Bluffing, Netanyahu Is Not

In March 2012, President Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. 'I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff.' He went on, 'I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.'"

Well, given Obama's behavior after declaring "red lines" and "game changers" involving Assad's use of chemical weapons against the rebels in Syria, it is fairly obvious that Obama does indeed bluff.

In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is not bluffing. Speaking with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, Netanyahu declared (http://freebeacon.com/netanyahu-new-iranian-presidents-strategy-smile-and-build-a-bomb/):

"I think we’ve spoken many times, President Obama and I about the need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I know that is the U.S. policy. What is important important to convey to them, especially after the elections, that that policy will not change and that it will be backed up by increasingly forceful sanctions and military action. In my view, there is a new president in Iran. He believes — he’s criticizing his predecessor for being a wolf in wolf’s clothing. His strategy is be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Smile and build a bomb. He brags about the fact that he talked to the Europeans while completing a nuclear conversion plan. I think they can’t be allowed to get away with it. They’re getting closer and closer to the bomb, and they have to be told in no uncertain terms that will not be allowed to happen. I think it’s important to understand that we cannot allow it to happen. You know, our clocks are ticking at a different pace. We’re closer than the United States. We’re more vulnerable and therefore we’ll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does. But as the Prime Minister of Israel, I’m determined to do whatever is necessary to defend my country, the one and only Jewish state from the regime that threatens us with renewed annihilation."

How do we know that Netanyahu is not bluffing? Simple: Netanyahu has been schooled in the philosophy that if someone says they intend to kill you, you had best believe them.

When the time comes, Netanyahu will not hesitate to act.

Meanwhile, however, August draws near, and the West prepares to go on vacation.

"Face the Nation": Dan Pfeiffer Tells a Bald-Faced Lie Concerning Benghazi

Today, on "Face the Nation" (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147142n), Bob Schieffer and Dan Pfeiffer, Assistant to the President of the United States and Senior Advisor to the President for Strategy and Communications, had the following interchange:

Bob Schieffer:

"Susan Rice . . . had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast and other Sunday broadcasts five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get into an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is, what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed."

Dan Pfeiffer:

"But . . . what she said, and now that the talking points have been released, or the e-mails and the talking points have been released, we know that what she was saying was what the CIA believed at the time. When we got additional information, we put that out. We tried to get it as right as we could, and as we got new information, we showed it to the American people."

The CIA believed at the time that the Benghazi assault resulted from a spontaneous demonstration provoked by an Internet video? Sorry, no way. We still don't know who was responsible for interjecting the Internet video into the matter, but we do know that the West Wing, the State Department and the CIA removed any mention of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, an organization affiliated with al-Qaeda, from the talking points.

As reported by Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-email-objected-benghazi-talking-points-220924269.html):

"Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public, according to emails released Wednesday by the White House.

Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee."

Yes, Pfeiffer's fabrications at this late date, in flagrant denial of the facts and falling far beyond the realm of "spin," make me nauseous.

Apparently Pfeiffer believes that by engaging in "speed talk," he can obscure the truth.

How is it that a man as smart as Obama is incapable of understanding that those around him are burying whatever is left of his credibility?