White House Spokesman Josh Earnest: Not Appropriate for Hamas to Restore Rocket Fire

As just reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-32-hamas-warns-that-without-deal-on-harbor-itll-resume-attacks-friday/):

"White House Spokesman Josh Earnest sounded a cautious note today, saying that the White House 'did not believe it was appropriate for Hamas to restore rocket fire' in a tempered response to the reescalation of violence between Israel and Gaza."

Guess what, Josh? Firing rockets at civilian population centers is more than inappropriate. It's a war crime.

I never thought it possible that I could miss Jay Carney.

Consider also what, again according to The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-33-us-hopes-for-new-gaza-truce-in-coming-hours-livni-submits-plan-to-end-conflict/), US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf had to tell reporters today:

"What Hamas did today in its decision to resume rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk."

Hamas rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk? True, we are being informed by the Israel Defense Forces, that 20 percent of the rockets fired by Hamas on Friday fell on Gaza, but apparently Harf also has a problem declaring that rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilian population centers is a war crime.

Let there be no mistake about it: Obama & Co. are not friends of Israel.

David Brooks, "Love Story": Love in the Time of Chimera

Gabriel García Márquez, author of "Love in the Time of Cholera," died two weeks ago, and with his passing, at least for me, love died as I had once imagined it. Sure, I can take my copy of his masterpiece off the shelf and blow the dust from its cover, but I doubt, today, whether I am capable of emulating Florentino Ariza's enduring passion.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Love Story" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/brooks-love-story.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks describes a real-life love story from Leningrad, which occurred almost 70 years ago, involving philosopher Isaiah Berlin and poetess Anna Akhmatova. Brooks concludes:

"For Berlin, this night was the most important event of his life. Akhmatova was stuck in the Soviet Union, living under a regime of manipulation, fear and lies. She suffered horrendously for it. The regime decided that she had cavorted with a British spy. She was expelled from the Writer’s Union. Her son was thrown into prison. She was desolated but never blamed Berlin, speaking of him fervently and writing movingly about the numinous magic of that night.

I’m old enough to remember when many people committed themselves to this sort of life and dreamed of this sort of communion — the whole Great Books/Big Ideas thing. I am not sure how many people believe in or aspire to this sort of a life today. I’m not sure how many schools prepare students for this kind of love."

How many people "believe in or aspire to this sort of a life today"? Not many. They're too busy seeking a prestigious job with Google (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/thomas-friedman-how-to-get-job-at.html).

Or, they're preoccupied with adding a selfie to their homepage on Facebook.

Or, like me, they are overwhelmed by nausea after contemplating Jay Carney's efforts to explain away the White House's refusal to turn over to Congress an email from Ben Rhodes, which established the "goal" of underscoring "that these protests [in Benghazi] are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy" (see: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/). It's hard to fathom, but Americans are paying Carney for his equivocation and derision, i.e. a new age masochistic indulgence.

"How many schools prepare students for this kind of love"? You are truly imagining a different epoch, David.

Gail Collins, "Windsors Versus Weiner": Breaking Wind Over Weiner

"I am beginning to think a royal family might come in handy," Gail Collins candidly writes at the beginning of her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Windsors Versus Weiner" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/collins-windsors-versus-weiner.html?_r=0). Heck, she can no longer write about Romney's dog. Sex and crime have been monopolized by Maureen. So what's left? Eureka! Windsors and Weiner! They both begin with "W"!

And so, a new New York Times op-ed is born! Substance be damned!

Collins writes:

"Also, it appears that Weiner’s long speeches in Congress about the single-payer plan might also have been a kind of mating call. 'Your health care rants were a huge turn-on,' wrote the woman who reputedly talked dirty with him online."

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. But as long we're on the topic of long speeches and breaking wind, didn't the president give a speech of more than an hour yesterday concerning America's flailing economy? Yes, he did, but nobody cared . . . except for his much diminished cheerleading squad, consisting these days of little more than the editorial board of Gail's newspaper.

In an editorial entitled "The Middle Class at Center Stage" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/the-middle-class-at-center-stage.html), The New York Times would have us believe:

"Washington is a city of sideshows, full of people who consider it their job to create distractions from the nation’s most serious problems. Politicians would rather argue about nonexistent scandals or plot to undermine each other’s programs than come up with ways to create jobs or elevate the hopes of the next generation.

President Obama needs to change the subject to have a successful final term, and he announced on Wednesday, in forceful terms, that he intends to do just that. In a speech in Galesburg, Ill., he said his highest priority for the next 1,276 days would be rebuilding a middle class that has been battered by globalization, technological change, and the concentration of wealth at the highest levels.

'Washington has taken its eye off the ball,' he said, 'and I am here to say this needs to stop.'"

Now which ball would that be? A golf ball?

But let's get serious for a moment.

Yesterday, before Obama's Galesburg speech, you had Jay Carney telling "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough (see: http://freebeacon.com/joe-scarborough-unleashes-on-jay-carney/):

"The president will go back to Galesburg, Illinois today to deliver a speech about where we need to move the economy, what we should be focusing on here in Washington. And it shouldn't be on the skirmishes that cause gridlock. It shouldn't be on the phony scandals that have consumed so much attention here, all to come to naught. It should be focused on what we can do to strengthen and grow the middle class."

And then finally there was the Galesburg speech itself, during which Obama declared:

"With an endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington’s taken its eye off the ball."

Hmm, "phony scandals" from Carney and Obama, "nonexistent scandals" from the Times. Do you smell a sound bite as opposed to economic repositioning?

I do. Unfortunately, the stench is also coming from The New York Times, which was once supposed to be a serious independent newspaper and not a "progressive" political mouthpiece.

IRS targeting of Obama's political opponents, the Benghazi cover-up and NSA overreaching? No "scandal" involving any of these little horrors. Let's roll up our sleeves, forget they ever happened, and get back to business.

Hope, Change and Forward! Four legs good, two legs bad!

Sickening.

Maureen Dowd, "Serving Up Schlock": No, She's Not Referring to Jay Carney

Television? I'll let you in on a deep, dark secret: I like "Game of Thrones," but that's the extent of my vice. I also liked "The Sopranos" and "The Wire," but in both of of these instances, I think I can now safely plead the statute of limitations.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Serving Up Schlock" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/dowd-serving-up-schlock.html), Maureen Dowd ridicules network television fare:

"It turns out that Washington isn’t the only place where ideas come to die.

TV honchos cling to outmoded programming traditions even as many younger Americans, gorging on a movable feast of platforms, are losing the habit of turning on the TV, and even as top talent peels off to enjoy the freedom of cable and imaginative hubs like Amazon, Hulu, YouTube and Netflix . . ."

Dowd is right! Who needs network programming, when it will be so much more entertaining to watch Lois Lerner plead the Fifth concerning her involvement in the IRS scandal. (She still hasn't been fired?) Recall that the editorial board of The New York Times has gone on record as stating that the IRS "acted inappropriately because employees couldn’t understand inadequate guidelines" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-scandal.html). Just one big misunderstanding, yet here we have Lerner about to take the Fifth?

More comedy? Listen to Jay Carney try to avoid answering and then explain away why White House chief lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler purportedly chose not to inform the president that the IRS was targeting conservatives ("Let's not tell Daddy"?).

The prior day, Carney had said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/20/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-5202013):

"In these situations the counsel made the decision that this is not the kind of thing that you notify the president of, of an investigation that’s not complete, because it wouldn’t be appropriate to do so."

But as Dan Balz of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-more-clarity-white-house-adds-to-confusion-on-irs/2013/05/21/a40c54f2-c24d-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html?hpid=z2) asks today:

"Why would it be inappropriate for the president to know what his chief of staff, his counsel and others on his senior staff knew and were talking about with others in the government? Would telling him require him to do something inappropriate? Would he be open to criticism if he knew and stood idly by? Perhaps, but if his top advisers knew weren’t inclined to act inappropriately, why would the president?"

But that's just half of it. Do you honestly believe that Kathryn Ruemmler, all of 42 years old, took it entirely upon herself not to inform the president? What's that? You believe it? Okay, there's a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.

And then there was also the scintillating repartee between former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and Maureen Dowd herself. On "Morning Joe," Gibbs let loose a broadside at Dowd, who has plainly fallen out of love with Obama.

As reported by Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/robert-gibbs-maureen-dowd-91608.html), Dowd was quick to fire back:

"'I don’t normally listen to Robert,' she wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. 'I don’t largely because it’s sort of largely the same tired defense of President Obama for the last, like, six years.'"

You go, girl!

Heck, with this abundance of alternative entertainment, you might need medical marijuana to treat depression, but there is certainly no need for network sitcoms.

Washington Post, "White House Knew IRS Probe Findings Earlier": No One Bothered to Tell Obama, Too Busy Improving His Swing

As reported by The Washington Post in an article entitled "White House knew IRS probe findings earlier" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-knew-irs-probe-findings-earlier/2013/05/20/56598718-c17e-11e2-ab60-67bba7be7813_story.html?hpid=z2#), written by Zachary A. Goldfarb and Juliet Eilperin:

"White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other top officials about the IRS findings nearly a month ago, press secretary Jay Carney said Monday. Ruemmler decided the information should not be transmitted to the president because the IRS inspector general’s report was not finished, he said.

'The judgment of the White House counsel was that this is not a matter that she should convey to the president,' Carney told reporters during a tense news briefing. 'This is not the kind of thing, when you have an ongoing investigation or an ongoing audit, that requires notification to the president, because what is important is that we wait until that kind of process is completed before we take action.'

The new account goes well beyond what officials had said as recently as Sunday, when senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said in television interviews that the White House did not know the results of the inquiry until the inspector general’s report was released last week. Carney had said previously that Ruemmler was told 'only about the fact that the IG was finishing a review' of the IRS’s conduct, and he portrayed it as a 'normal sort of heads-up' notification."

Or, Ruemmler told McDonough, and both decided not to inform Obama of the investigation or its bombshell results, because the president was too busy playing golf with Tiger Woods. Yeah, right.

If this was indeed the case, both Ruemmler and McDonough should be fired for displaying astonishingly poor judgment.

And Obama should resign for incompetent management of his staff.

It will be a carnival when Ruemmler and McDonough are ultimately questioned by the House.

Maureen Dowd, "Cascading Confessions": Angelina Jolie's Double Mastectomy

Scandal has rendered the Obama administration dysfunctional at a time when America has yet to emerge from its worst economic downturn in recent decades, and while the US faces monumental challenges overseas from the likes of North Korea and Iran. Instead of taking the reins and leading, Obama has allowed White House spokesman Jay Carney to take most of the heat, and Carney is now being bloodied even by the "progressive" media following the Justice Department's examination of the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

Or, we don't care if the IRS targets conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status, but the press is off limits.

Indeed, the Benghazi and the IRS scandal couldn't get much of a rise from The New York Times or its op-ed columnists, but the AP scandal has finally provoked a scolding from the Gray Lady (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-spying-on.html).

After Maureen Dowd, on Sunday, blasted the Obama administration for denying aid to Ambassador Stevens when he came under siege in Benghazi (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/maureen-dowd-when-myths-collide-in.html), I wondered whether she might pick up her pen and protest the IRS and AP debacles. I also wondered whether Thomas Friedman, off in the wilds of Yemen, might return home at lightning speed to cover these mushrooming stories. Maureen, however, has devoted today's column, entitled "Cascading Confessions" (http://wap.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/dowd-cascading-confessions.html), to Angelina Jolie's double preventive mastectomy, and Tom Terrific has written a piece entitled "A Visit to Yemen's Zoo," which, quite honestly, I didn't bother reading.

Re Jolie, Dowd observes:

"[Jolie] knows that she will face criticism for elitism, given that she has the money to get the more than $3,000 BRCA testing and the best surgeons, while other women don’t. Yet her courage in going public with the graphic details of her mutilation and reconstruction, even though she’s part of an industry that considers a 10-pound weight gain a career catastrophe, makes her a real-life action heroine.

Ever since Rock Hudson gave a face to AIDS and softened the position of Ronald Reagan, we have known it is possible for Hollywood stars to ameliorate the stigma of disease and spark recognition, conversation and inspiration."

Jolie's preventive mastectomy "makes her a real-life action heroine"? Maybe, but I have another heroine in mind.

More than forty years ago, my mother discovered a lump on her breast, which was determined to be cancerous. She underwent a radical mastectomy, which included removal of her lymph nodes, but there were no meaningful reconstructive alternatives at the time. Her left arm remained swollen for the rest of her life, but this did not stop her from playing the piano, writing poetry and typing scathing letters to her arch-foe, William Buckley. She never felt sorry for herself and never hid the fact that she had undergone the operation. She lived life to the fullest and fought to the end after she was diagnosed with lymphoma some twenty years later.

Jolie's preventive double mastectomy? I think it's wonderful that she could be honest and open.

Me? I suppose it's no surprise that in the twilight years of my professional career I'm an outside consultant to a cutting edge biotech firm in hot pursuit of novel monoclonal antibody therapies for cancer. I also plan to begin writing a book detailing the history of this quest.

Some day in the not too distant future, women will not need to go under the knife for breast and ovarian cancer. I look forward to that time.

New York Times Editorial, "A Bumbling Response on Talking Points": Bumbling Only on Talking Points? Sorry, this Is a Debacle

Having systematically sought to ignore the Benghazi disaster (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-beyond-fence-new-jg.html) and with their credibility hanging by a thread (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/13/all-the-banality-thats-fit-to-print/), the editorial board of The New York Times is back with more buffoonery. In a short editorial entitled "A Bumbling Response on Talking Points" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/white-house-under-fire-it-fumbles-benghazi-response.html), these geniuses would have us know:

"No matter how often Republicans denounce them, the initial talking points used by the White House to describe the attack in Benghazi, Libya are not the real point. But they have become a major political issue in large part because of the White House’s inept response to questions about how they were written."

An "inept" response to the redaction of the talking points, amounting to twelve versions of "spin" with no concern for the truth on the ground? Sorry, but I would label the White House's would-be indifferent response, i.e. Jay Carney's "Benghazi happened a long time ago," as "mendacious."

The editorial continues:

"It is also true that the details of crises often take time to sort out; we now know the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were carried out by Al Qaeda-linked groups, though at least initially, that was unclear."

Rubbish. As apparent from the first draft of the talking points ("we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack"), the Obama administration, the State Department and the CIA knew real time who was behind the assault.

The editorial says:

"But both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have accepted responsibility for the security failures."

Obama and Hillary have accepted responsibility? Oh, really? One day after the attack, Hillary stated (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-republicans.html), "we are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault" and then linked the attack to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Months later, of course, Hillary would infamously declare:

"With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"

"What difference at this point does it make"? That's a peculiar way of accepting responsibility.

Obama? In an appearance on the "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart on October 18, 2012, the president declared:

"When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world, immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and people try to piece together exactly what happened. And what I have always tried to do is to make sure we just get all the facts, figure out what went wrong, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. And we’re still in that process now. But everything we get, every piece of information we get — as we got it — we laid it out for the American people."

Needless to say, "every piece of information" was not laid out for the American people. In fact, no information was subsequently laid out for examination. Is this an appropriate way to go about accepting responsibility?

The Times editorial next tells us:

"It was surprising that [The Accountability and Review Board] did not question Mrs. Clinton or her two top deputies because, as Thomas Pickering, the former diplomat who co-chaired the inquiry explained, the board concluded mistakes were made by less senior officials."

It may be surprising for the editorial board of The Times, but it was not surprising for me. Pickering just happens to serve on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (http://www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=About_pickering), he has met with Hamas leaders, and he serves as the chair of the Board of Trustees of the International Crisis Group where George Soros also serves as a member of the Executive Committee (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx).

The editorial concludes:

"There are serious issues that need follow up, including the C.I.A.’s role in responding to the Benghazi attacks, stability in Libya, which is in disarray, and the status of diplomatic security reforms. But none of that seems to concern Republicans who are out for political vengeance."

Sorry, but this is not a matter of Republicans versus Democrats. Rather, this involves the death of a US ambassador and three other Americans, and the failure of the Obama administration to lift a finger to come to their aid while they were under siege. This also involves the secretary of state and the president arrogantly deceiving Americans regarding the identity and motives of those responsible for this horror.

In short, there should be nothing partisan about pursuing this investigation. It is a simple matter of right and wrong, which has sullied US government credibility at home and overseas.

See also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-next-scapegoat-benghazi.html

Frank Bruni, "Our Ceaseless Circus": Restaurant Critic Rushes to the Aid of a Beleaguered Obama

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Our Ceaseless Circus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/bruni-our-ceaseless-circus.html), Frank Bruni rushes to the aid of a beleaguered Obama. Bruni tells us:

• "We live in a country lousy with guns and bloody with gun-related violence,"
• "Now we have a scandal at the Internal Revenue Service to factor in," and
• "To follow the debate over immigration reform is to lose sight at times of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in limbo."

Indeed, American is currently overwhelmed with problems, which also include some 50 million Americans on food stamps, a horrifying level of unemployment, and federal debt of some $16.8 trillion. With regard to all these sorrows, Bruni tells us:

"On issue after issue, the sideshow swallows the substance, as politicians and the seemingly infinite ranks of political handlers join us journalists in gaming everything out, ad infinitum."

A "sideshow"? Now just when did I last hear that word used? Oh, that's right, it was President Obama yesterday telling us with respect to the Benghazi debacle that the redaction of the talking points was a "sideshow" and that the House investigation of the assault is a "political circus."

Feigning objectivity, Bruni goes on to say:

"At Obama’s news conference, he breezed past the I.R.S. debacle too quickly, and I’m not sure why he’d stayed mum until then. He flashed too much self-righteous anger about the scrutiny of the Benghazi talking points, which strike to important matters of accountability and credibility.

But however self-servingly, Obama got one thing about Benghazi exactly right: what’s most vital, and what’s being obscured, is how we improve diplomatic security."

Sorry, Frank, but how do you "improve diplomatic security" when both the secretary of state and the president are prepared to lie to the American people concerning the identity of those threatening diplomatic security?

One day after the attack, Hillary stated (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-republicans.html), "we are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault" and then linked the attack to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Months later, of course, Hillary would infamously declare:

"With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"

Obama, in an appearance on the "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart on October 18, 2012, declared:

"When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world, immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and people try to piece together exactly what happened. And what I have always tried to do is to make sure we just get all the facts, figure out what went wrong, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. And we’re still in that process now. But everything we get, every piece of information we get — as we got it — we laid it out for the American people."

Needless to say, "every piece of information" was not laid out for the American people. In fact, no information was subsequently laid out for examination. The Obama administration systematically obscured the involvement of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, an organization affiliated with al-Qaeda, in the assault.

Yes, Frank, America is awash with problems and scandals, but Benghazi is no "sideshow." Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans died under siege when no one lifted a finger to come to their aid. For his part, Obama, aware of the crisis, went to bed.

Benghazi did not happen "a long time ago," as White House spokesman Jay Carney would have us believe, and notwithstanding all the other problems, it is not going to be swept under the carpet.

It's not a sideshow, it's not Republicans versus Democrats, rather it's a straightforward matter of right and wrong.

See also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-next-scapegoat-benghazi.html

David Brooks, "The Next Scapegoat": Benghazi? There's Enough Blame to Go Around for Everyone

The New York York Times editorial board and Times columnist David Brooks have finally woken up to their failure to relate to the Benghazi scandal. Having sought for so long to sweep Benghazi under the rug (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-beyond-fence-new-jg.html), the editorial board of The Times is now engaged in damage control regarding its own reputation and that of the Obama administration, which it so faithfully serves (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/13/all-the-banality-thats-fit-to-print/). Brooks, on the other hand, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Next Scapegoat" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/brooks-the-next-scapegoat.html?_r=0), is seeking to defend a friend, Victoria Nuland.

Indeed, the West Wing, the State Department and the CIA are now busy pointing fingers at one another and attempting to shift the blame. President Obama would have us forget the whole thing, which he labels a "sideshow," in keeping with the attempt by White House spokesman Jay Carney to relegate the affair to ancient history, i.e. "Let's be clear, Benghazi happened a long time ago." In fact, there is enough blame to go around for everyone.

In defense of Nuland, Brooks today tells us:

"Over the past few weeks, the spotlight has turned on Nuland. The charge is that intelligence officers prepared accurate talking points after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, and that Nuland, serving her political masters, watered them down.

The charges come from two quarters, from Republicans critical of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi and intelligence officials shifting blame for Benghazi onto the State Department.

. . . .

We now know, thanks to reporting by Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Michael Schmidt in The Times, that Benghazi was primarily a C.I.A. operation. Furthermore, intelligence officers underestimated how dangerous the situation was. They erred in vetting the Libyan militia that was supposed to provide security."

The article by Schmitt, Cooper and Schmidt (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html), to which Brooks refers, told us back on September 23, 2012:

"'It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss,' said one American official who has served in Libya and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the F.B.I. is still investigating the attack. 'We got our eyes poked out.'

The C.I.A.’s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya include Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that some have blamed for the attack, as well as suspected members of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."

Note that the damage to CIA operations in Libya contradicted the Obama administration's pre-election narrative, i.e. that US involvement in bringing down the Qaddafi regime, which had been demeaned by some as "leadership from behind," had in fact been a smashing success and that al-Qaeda, with the death of bin Laden, had been dealt a mortal blow.

Brooks's conclusion regarding this disaster:

"Several things were apparently happening. Each of the different players had their hands on a different piece of the elephant. If there was any piece of the talking points that everybody couldn’t agree upon, it got cut. Second, the administration proceeded with extreme caution about drawing conclusions, possibly overlearning the lessons from the Bush years. Third, as the memos moved up the C.I.A. management chain, the higher officials made them more tepid (this is apparently typical). Finally, in the absence of a clear narrative, the talking points gravitated toward the least politically problematic story, blaming the anti-Muslim video and the Cairo demonstrations.

Is this a tale of hard intelligence being distorted for political advantage? Maybe. Did Victoria Nuland scrub the talking points to serve Clinton or President Obama? That charge is completely unsupported by the evidence. She was caught in a brutal interagency turf war, and she defended her department. The accusations against her are bogus."

First, I don't know Ms. Nuland. More to the point, I am not blaming her. I don't even blame Susan Rice, an Obama devotee, who thought she was doing her job.

As far as I am concerned, there are two primary aspects to the Benghazi debacle. First, a US ambassador in the Middle East was murdered, and the Obama administration never lifted a finger to protect him while the assault was underway. Even if the US presence in Benghazi primarily involved intelligence gathering, the murder of a US ambassador, the American retreat from the city with its tail between its legs, and the failure to carry out retribution against those who perpetrated the attack, have dealt US overseas prestige a stinging blow.

The second failure involves a concerted effort by the Obama administration, going right up to the top, to misinform the American electorate. Let's ignore the shameful way in which the talking points were redacted at the expense of the truth. Suffice it to say, we witnessed the over-zealous efforts of persons, many of them youngsters, whose expertise involves public relations and who know nothing - and consequently care nothing - about actual events on the ground. In short, these people were doing what they do best, i.e. spinning a nasty set of circumstances.

Instead, let's focus on what Hillary Clinton had to say. Hillary toed the Obama administration's line and tied the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi to an absurd film concerning Mohamed. One day after the attack, she stated (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-republicans.html), "we are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault" and then linked the attack to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Months later, of course, Hillary would infamously declare:

"With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"

President Obama? In an appearance on the "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart on October 18, 2012, Obama declared:

"When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world, immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and people try to piece together exactly what happened. And what I have always tried to do is to make sure we just get all the facts, figure out what went wrong, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. And we’re still in that process now. But everything we get, every piece of information we get — as we got it — we laid it out for the American people."

Needless to say, "every piece of information" was not laid out for the American people. In fact, no information was subsequently laid out for examination.

Or stated otherwise, Hillary and Obama told bald-faced lies.

Is it a "scandal" when an American ambassador is murdered and no one comes to his aid, and when America's secretary of state and president cover up the facts? I think so, but then, heck, maybe at my age, I'm no longer attuned to our brave new world.

David Brooks, "The Final Reckoning": No Mention of Benghazi

David Brooks latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Final Reckoning" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/brooks-the-final-reckoning.html?_r=0) is less than complimentary of Obama. Brooks observes that Obama's vision has contracted "politically," "managerially," and in terms of "mood" and "vision." However, Brooks concludes his opinion piece on a hopeful note:

"No one is fair to President Obama. People grade him against tougher standards than any other politician. But his innate ability justifies that high standard. These are the standards he properly set for himself. If re-elected, he’d be free from politics. It’d be interesting to see if he returns to his earlier largeness."

But more troublesome for me is David's claim that Obama's first term has been scandal-free:

"In office, he has generally behaved with integrity and in a way befitting a man with his admirable character. Sure, he has sometimes stooped to the cynical maneuver. Contemptuous of his opponents, he has given himself permission to do the nasty and negative thing. But politics is a rough business and nobody comes out unsullied.

In moral terms, he hasn’t let us down. If he’s re-elected, his administration would probably remain scandal-free. Given the history of second terms, that is no small thing."

Excuse me, but why is there no mention of Benghazi? Over the course of a month and a half, Obama, Jay Carney, Hillary and Susan Rice systematically lied to the American people concerning the nature of the attacks against the US consulate and the CIA annex, claiming that the violence amounted to a "spontaneous demonstration" stemming from an absurd Internet video.

Suddenly, on Thursday, a mere five days before the election, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius was allowed to speak with an anonymous "senior intelligence official," who provided Ignatius with a timeline of the attacks. From the title of the Ignatius opinion piece describing the interview, "In Benghazi timeline, CIA errors but no evidence of conspiracy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-cias-benghazi-timeline-reveals-errors-but-no-evidence-of-conspiracy/2012/11/01/a84c4024-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?hpid=z1), you might think that the issues surrounding the attack have been put to bed. Instead, there are now even more questions than answers.

An unarmed Predator drone provided real time footage of events as they unfolded at the consulate, there was no interruption of communication between the Americans on the ground in Benghazi and Washington, and the CIA reinforcements who arrived at 1:15 a.m. from Tripoli were fully aware of al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks:

"The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. . . . But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."

Sorry, but everyone in the Obama administration knew that the attacks on the consulate and CIA annex did not involve a "spontaneous demonstration," and they also knew of al-Qaeda's involvement, yet this did not prevent Obama and friends from perpetuating a lie as long as they could get away with it.

Obama's first term has been "scandal-free" and the president has "behaved with integrity and in a way befitting a man with his admirable character?" Road apples!

Maureen Dowd, "An Irish Catholic Wake-Up": Sidestepping the Benghazi Cover-Up

This past Thursday, the Vice President of the United States told a bald-faced lie to the American electorate during his debate with Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. Note the following interchange concerning the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi between moderator Martha Raddatz and Joe Biden:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.

Ah, yes, the intelligence community is to blame. Vice President Biden, however, knows that this is "not accurate." The intelligence community never changed its assessment. The White House was almost immediately informed of the exact nature of the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate. As reported by Reuters (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE89201220121003):

"Within hours of last month's attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama's administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said."

A team player, Biden was willing to do his part to perpetuate the myth that the White House had not received accurate information at the expense of the US intelligence community, some of whom place their lives on the line every day to protect American lives and freedom. Biden would have us believe that this "inaccurate" information from the intelligence community was what caused US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice and White House spokesman Jay Carney to label the attack on the Benghazi consulate as "spontaneous."

It should come as no surprise that The New York Times, the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, is also doing its utmost to avoid mention of the Benghazi cover-up.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "An Irish Catholic Wake-Up" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/an-irish-catholic-wake-up.html?pagewanted=all), Maureen Dowd, who knows almost nothing about foreign affairs, derides Paul Ryan and "the bankrupt neocon philosophy of going to war to prevent war." The Queen of Snark writes:

"Ronald Reagan knew how to bluster for peace. Neocons do not. When they run the show, threatening a war is followed by going to war and that is followed by bollixing up the war and that is followed by our troops’ dying at war and money-pit nation-building to end the war, and that is followed by economic disaster for America."

Well, I'm not a neocon. In fact, according to a PBS political party quiz (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2012/quiz/), my answers place me closest to being a "moderate Democrat." In any event, whatever I may or may not be, I have consistently opposed Obama's inane escalation of the ground war in Afghanistan, which has resulted in the tragic deaths of more than 2,000 American soldiers and which is costing the US $6 billion per month. Sorry, Maureen, but this is Obama's mess.

Near the end of her opinion piece, Dowd finally gets around to mentioning the Benghazi debacle:

"Biden’s weakest moment was on Libya, where he stumbled as he claimed that the White House didn’t know about requests for more security for diplomats there. It is likely true that such an appeal never made it through the Foggy Bottom bureaucracy to the West Wing. But the vice president should have been prepared to answer questions about a blunder that has scuffed the administration’s national security luster.

. . . .

The president’s advisers now realize they will need a much better explanation by Tuesday, when Romney is certain to press Obama on the issue."

Of course, Dowd is cleverly attempting to sidestep Biden's fib concerning when the Obama administration first became aware of the true nature of the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate and Obama's month-long effort to flummox the American electorate.

Shame on Biden for defaming the US intelligence community.

Shame on Dowd for her willingness to dodge the issue.

Maureen Dowd, "Complicity in Duplicity?": The Queen of Snark Wakes Up to a Cover Up

On September 12, shortly after the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, I wrote in no uncertain words (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/gail-collins-mitts-major-meltdown.html):

"Make no mistake about it: The movie 'Innocence of Muslims' was a disinformation exercise, timed around 9/11, intended to exacerbate Arab rioting that had been scheduled in advance. Worse still, the global media, hungry for a story, quickly cooperated by publicizing all of the story's false threads."

Nevertheless, the Obama administration chose to pretend that the attacks had been "spontaneous" in respose to this silly excuse for a film.

Initially oblivious to the Obama administration's snow job, Maureen Dowd stated in her September 25th New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Not Debtors’ Prison?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/opinion/dowd-why-not-debtors-prison.html):

"At least the president has a foreign policy."

Well, Dowd has now woken up to the effort to disguise a foreign policy and national security disgrace. In her latest Times op-ed entitled "Complicity in Duplicity?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/opinion/dowd-complicity-in-duplicity.html), Dowd tells us:

"It’s remarkable that President Obama, who came to power abhorring the manipulative and duplicitous tactics of the Bush crowd, should now be vulnerable to similar charges.

. . . .

Just so, in an overzealous effort to burnish a president who did not need burnishing — especially against foreign policy bumbler Mitt Romney and foreign policy novice Paul Ryan — they have gotten tangled in contradictory accounts about Benghazi. The administration had benefited from the impression that it had diminished Al Qaeda, even though the public no doubt appreciates that it was never going to be so simple."

Dowd unreasonably blames only Susan Rice for "rushing to pump up the president on national security." Yet in this instance, culpability extends far beyond America's ambitious Ambassador to the United Nations. White House press secretary Jay Carney declared on September 14:

"We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive."

However, as reported by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/):

"U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it."

Make no mistake about it: The breakdown of security in Benghazi and the subsequent attempt to bamboozle the American public should be the subject of a congressional investigation.

Obama's Relationship with Israel at New Nadir

On Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney stated (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/31/Carney-US-Israel-relations-strong/UPI-67541346443820/):

"It is the president's firm commitment that we must prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

The problem, however, is that neither Iran nor Israel believe in Obama's "firm commitment." In response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report on Iran's nuclear development program, Bloomberg's editors wrote yesterday (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-31/new-iran-nuclear-report-should-not-be-signal-to-attack.html):

"The IAEA’s latest update makes four important things clear. First, that Iran has recently been putting less energy into developing its main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and a lot more into expanding production at the hardened bunker at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom.

Second, that the pace at which Iran is producing uranium enriched to 20 percent picked up sharply in February and has continued at that pace. . . . Uranium enriched to about 3.5 percent is used for civilian power plants.

. . . .

Third, that since the IAEA first demanded access to a military site called Parchin in January, Iran has kept out the inspectors, stalled on negotiations and suddenly begun razing and apparently cleaning the site.

. . . .

Finally, the report says that IAEA monitoring suggests none of Iran’s enriched uranium stocks appear to have been diverted. Just less than half of the 20 percent enriched uranium Iran has produced so far (the total to August stands at 189.4 kilograms, or 417.6 pounds) is been being used to make plates for the medical reactor. That leaves a stockpile of about 90 kilograms. It takes roughly 175 kilograms to make a bomb."

In short, notwithstanding Obama's warning to Iran that "as president of the United States, I don't bluff" (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), Iran is obviously proceeding posthaste to build its first atomic bomb, and Obama's much vaunted economic sanctions have had no effect on that effort.

Israeli credence in Obama's professed intention to prevent Iran from building its first nuclear weapon was dealt another slap in the face this past week when US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, declared that he didn't want to be "complicit" in an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities. As reported by The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/israeli-attack-iran-not-stop-nuclear?newsfeed=true):

"Distancing himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran, Dempsey said such an attack would 'clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme'.

He added: 'I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.'"

Obama's attempts to isolate Iran again also met with failure yesterday. As we are told by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/world/middleeast/iran-criticizes-egypts-mohamed-morsi-over-syria-comments.html):

"The 120-nation Nonaligned Movement handed its host Iran a diplomatic victory on Friday, unanimously decreeing support for the disputed Iranian nuclear energy program and criticizing the American-led attempt to isolate and punish Iran with unilateral economic sanctions."

Meanwhile, as reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-scales-down-annual-military-drill-with-israel/), Israeli trust in Obama's intentions were further depleted by his decision to downgrade an upcoming joint military exercise:

"Washington says that it will scale down its participation in what was planned to be the largest ever joint Israeli-American military exercise, Time Magazine reported Friday.

The Austere Challenge 12 exercise, to be held in October, was to feature thousands of soldiers and advanced anti-missile defense systems and simulate simultaneous fire from Iran and Syria.

The report quoted sources in Washington as saying 1,500 US troops — perhaps even 1,200 — would be sent to participate in the exercise instead of the original 5,000. In addition, sources in both Jerusalem and Washington told Time that it was probable that only one Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warship — instead of two — would be sent to Israel.

The Patriot anti-missile systems set to be dispatched to Israel would reportedly arrive as planned, but not the crews to operate them."

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's response? Yesterday, we were informed by The Jerusalem Post of a "shouting match" between Netanyahu and the US ambassador to Israel in the presence of US Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=283353):

"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu got into a diplomatic shouting match with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro over US President Barack Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear program, saying 'time has run out' for diplomacy, Yediot Aharonot cited a source as saying on Friday.

According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not independently verify, the showdown took place as Netanyahu met with Shapiro and Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who visited Israel earlier in the week.

A source that participated in the meeting said that a particularly angry and stressed Netanyahu began a tirade against the US president, attacking him for not doing enough on Iran. 'Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities,' the source quoted Netanyahu as saying."

In short, the relationship between the US and Israel hasn't been this bad in decades.

White House Press Secretary Contradicts US Secretary of Defense Concerning Iranian Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

Earlier this week, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, on his way from Tunisia to Egypt, claimed that sanctions against Iran are having a "serious impact," and although this "may not seem obvious at the moment," the Iranians "continue to seem interested in trying to find a diplomatic solution" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world/middleeast/leon-panetta-urges-israel-to-allow-more-time-for-iran-sanctions-to-work.html?_r=1&ref=world).

Well, today White House Press Secretary Jay Carney acknowledged, "we agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu that the Iranian regime has yet to make the choice it needs to make, which is to abandon its weapons -- nuclear weapons ambitions and fulfill its obligations" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/01/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-mansfield-oh-8112).

Thanks for the Laurel and Hardy act, boys.

David Brooks, "Dullest Campaign Ever": That Changed on Sunday

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Dullest Campaign Ever" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/brooks-dullest-campaign-ever.html), David Brooks contends that this year's US presidential election is "incredibly consequential and incredibly boring all at the same time." Brooks supports this conclusion by alluding to nine characteristics of both candidates' campaigns:

1) emphasis on gaffes.
2) absence of "intellectual innovation."
3) "increased focus on the uninformed."
4) "lack of serious policy proposals."
5) "negative passion."
6) "no enactment strategy."
7) "ad budget myopia."
8) technology to make the campaigns "dumber."
9) numbing dishonesty.

Yes, all this is frustratingly true, yet Brooks ignores something significant that happened on Sunday: Romney declared from Jerusalem that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and also indicated that he would move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (see: http://news.yahoo.com/israel-romney-declares-jerusalem-capital-162843104.html).

Note that Obama has refused to visit Israel since becoming president. He has visited nearby Cairo, Riyadh and Istanbul, but has refused to set foot in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. This avoidance by Obama of a trip to Israel is very much in keeping with the observation made by veteran diplomat Aaron David Miller in a recent Foreign Policy article entitled "Warning: Turbulence Ahead" (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/warning_turbulence_ahead?page=full), in which the subheading states that Obama is "no Israel-lover," and if Obama is reelected, "expect a major clash with Benjamin Netanyahu."

Also note the recent refusal by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to state where the capital of Israel is located (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/ap-warm-reception-expected-as-romney.html).

Romney's acknowledgement that Jerusalem is indeed Israel's capital has Obama fuming. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Tuesday (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=279487):

"Well, our view is that that’s a different position than this administration holds. It’s the view of this administration that the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties."

Obama holds to the view that the US should not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Did it ever occur to Obama and his foreign policy advisers, including Samantha Power, who advocated sending US troops to protect Palestinians from Israel (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw), that his refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital adds credibility to Arab attacks on Israel's legitimacy?

Those who read this blog know that I have been critical of both candidates' refusal to address the US financial crisis with specific proposals. Here, however, with regard to Israel, a staunch American ally, there can be no mistaking the candidates' forthright positions, which differ in the extreme.

Maureen Dowd, "Mitt’s Olympic Meddle": Frankly, My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mitt’s Olympic Meddle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/dowd-mitts-olympic-meddle.html), Maureen Dowd takes Mitt Romney to task for his gaffe concerning the London Olympics:

"So the Republican presidential contender, eager to show off more than gubernatorial experience, travels overseas to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Then, in a TV interview, he blurts out a shockingly ill-considered, if undeniably true, observation that snowballs until the poor guy collapses into an international punch line."

As noted in an earlier blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/07/david-brooks-olympic-contradiction.html), given the Olympic Committee's refusal to observe a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes slain during the 1972 Munich games, I couldn't care less about Romney's remarks or whether Londoners were miffed. I am far more concerned by the refusal of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to identify the location of Israel's capital (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/07/ap-warm-reception-expected-as-romney.html).

Dowd concludes her opinion piece by observing:

"But if we’re going to have someone who’s removed, always struggling to connect and emote, why not stick with the president we already have?

Better the android you know than the android you don’t know."

Well, I would be inclined to agree with Dowd were it not for the disintegration of America's economy. I'm not looking for an emotional bond with the president.

Yeah, I know: We don't have a clue what Romney is proposing to remedy America's economic malaise, but it simply couldn't possibly get worse under Mitt . . . I hope.

AP, "Warm reception expected as Romney lands in Israel": Note Bald Faced Lie in Article

In an AP article entitled "Warm reception expected as Romney lands in Israel" (http://news.yahoo.com/warm-reception-expected-romney-lands-israel-183504295.html), it is asserted:

"Obama, who tried to persuade the Arab world that he was an honest broker, lost the Palestinians' trust by refusing to follow up tough talk with action when Israel defied his call to halt settlement construction on occupied land Palestinians seek for a future state.

The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank has refused to resume negotiations without a settlement construction freeze and went ahead with a statehood campaign at the United Nations, over the president's objections."

In fact, as observed by Rick Richman in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/12/30/re-palestinians-un-gambit-puts-both-israel-and-obama-on-the-spot/), the opposite is true:

"In 2009, Israel declared a 10-month West Bank construction moratorium (more than enough time to negotiate still another offer of a state, since Abbas asserted it would take only six months); George Mitchell repeatedly warned the Palestinians that the moratorium would not be extended, yet they had to be dragged to the table in the ninth month, and then left it at the end of the tenth."

The Israeli construction freeze was of course in accordance with the demands of Obama, but why should facts stand in the way of the AP story.

The AP story also observes:

"Romney — like most politicians who make the trek to Israel — is likely to face questions such as whether he would endorse calls by some fellow Republicans to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and his stance on Israeli calls for Washington to release convicted spy Jonathan Pollard."

Personally, I will be delighted if Romney is merely asked which city is the capital of Israel. Earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to answer this question.