Maureen Dowd, "Remainder Night at the Convention": Cleveland or Incirlik? It's More Fun at the Circus!

Tweet

Yesterday, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman drew similarities between Turkish President Erdogan and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. No mention by Friedman of the standoff at the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which the US Air Force launches strikes against ISIS.

As reported in an NBC News article entitled "Incirlik Air Base: Post-Coup Power Cut Remains at U.S. Site" by F. Brinley Bruton, Abigail Williams and Courtney Kube:

"A Turkish air base widely believed to house U.S. nuclear weapons continued to rely on backup generators Wednesday, five days after a failed coup plunged the country into crisis.

Commercial power was cut to Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey and the airspace above it closed within hours of Friday's attempted military takeover in the NATO country. Turkish commanders at the site were later arrested and led away after they were accused of allowing at least one tanker aircraft to refuel jets involved in the thwarted mutiny.

. . . .

No one is locked anywhere on the base, which has about 2,700 Defense Department civilians and military personnel, officials said. But people were not permitted to leave Wednesday for security reasons."

Regarding this crisis, Erdogan declared yesterday:

"We must not confound the issue of extradition of Gulen and the relations with the United States over air base Incirlik. Relations with other countries should not be built on feelings and emotions, but based on logic. Of course, it would be a big mistake on the part of the United States not to extradite Gulen. We've sent all the necessary documents to the United States, we've begun the extradition process, and we will wait for the decision."

Yes, the US is being blackmailed, and yes, the US needs to remove the nukes from Incirlik ASAP.

Meanwhile, Maureen Dowd, covering the Republican convention in Cleveland, writes in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Remainder Night at the Convention":

"Suddenly Trump, certainly irritated at not hearing the glorious sound of his own name in an elongated address by a 'loser [Ted Cruz],' entered the arena. He was once more soaring in, drowning Cruz out.

All eyes went to Trump as they dimmed the lights on the stage and the nominee regally walked in, a procession of one, to sit with his family in his stadium box with gold-and-black striped railings. The crowd got even more feral toward the former rival suddenly trapped onstage, looking like he didn’t know how to finish and finally slinking off."

My suggestion to Maureen: Take the next flight to Istanbul and report back from Incirlik, which could have implications for future life on this planet. Yes, I know: It's so much more fun at the circus.

Hillary Violated 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f): How Does She Avoid Indictment?

Tweet

18 U.S. Code § 793(f) - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information provides (my emphasis in red):

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Yesterday, as reported by NBC News in an articled entitled "Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG" by Ken Dilanian:

"Emails from Hillary Clinton's home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.

In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community's internal watchdog says some of Clinton's emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton's server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret."

How does Hillary avoid indictment? She doesn't.

Ruth Marcus, "The Clintons’ worst defender in chief": You Get What You Deserve

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The Clintons’ worst defender in chief," uber-liberal Ruth Marcus refers us to an interview of Bill Clinton by NBC News's Cynthia McFadden:

"Will you continue to give speeches, McFadden asked? “Oh yeah,” Clinton responded, as if the notion of calling a halt during his wife’s presidential campaign were absurd. “I gotta pay our bills.”

Oh. My. God.

As if the first $500,000 speech, or the 11th, were not enough. As if the former president had not raked in more than $100 million on the speaking circuit since leaving office. As if stopping would leave the Clintons huddled around the kitchen table, worrying over which bills to pay.

. . . .

“There has been a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down,” Bill Clinton said. “And there’s almost no new fact that’s known now that wasn’t known when she ran for president the first time.”

Not true. There have been lots of new facts occasioned by the simultaneity of Hillary Clinton’s service as secretary of state and the operations of Clinton Inc., both its charitable arm and its speech-making unit.

'We have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy,' Bill Clinton asserted. 'Knowingly inappropriate' — the 2016 version of Al Gore’s 'no controlling legal authority.'"

But now consider a New York Times/CBS News poll which has just determined:

"Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics.

. . . .

Mrs. Clinton remains a polarizing figure — nearly the same percentage of Americans view her positively as negatively — but her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state.

. . . .

While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by.

Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation."

Ultimately, if Hillary is elected president in 2016 and a White House bachelor suite is built for Bill, America will get what it deserves.

New York Times Editorial, "A Problem Beyond Mr. Hagel": Et Tu, Brute?

As reported by Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News in an article entitled "'Greatest Privilege of My Life': Chuck Hagel Resigns as Defense Secretary," the Obama administration has already begun to snipe at outgoing US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. As reported by the article, an anonymous "senior official" declared that Hagel "wasn’t up to the job." Well, as pointed out on numerous occasions in this blog, Hagel certainly wasn't one of the brighter lights in the Obama administration (I'm being kind), but this should have been apparent to anyone witnessing his confirmation hearings. On the other hand, Hagel faithfully carried out Obama's policy of implementing military budget cuts at a time when the US was facing heightened challenges from ISIS in the Middle East.

However, proven wrong in his assessment of the threat posed by ISIS (a "JV squad"), Obama, a narcissist, could not possibly acknowledge his mistake, and a scapegoat for this failure, i.e. Hagel, needed to be found.

Today, in an editorial entitled "A Problem Beyond Mr. Hagel," The New York Times actually suggests that Hagel is not responsible for the failure of US military policy over the past two years. Remarkably, the Times appears to lay the blame on Obama:

"[Hagel] was not the core of the Obama administration’s military problem. That lies with the president and a national security policy that has too often been incoherent and shifting at a time of mounting international challenges, especially in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

. . . .

Mr. Hagel was not well served by the fact that national security policy is tightly controlled by the White House, with Mr. Obama relying on a small group of aides, including Susan Rice, the national security adviser, for counsel. That process has often resulted in delayed and contradictory signals about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy agenda and the military strategies needed to carry it out.

. . . .

A more aggressive defense secretary who has Mr. Obama’s full confidence and ear may be able to better deal with chaos and war on these fronts. But, ultimately, it is Mr. Obama who will have to set the course with a more coherent strategy."

Ouch. Et tu, Brute?

Obama, the Procrastinator-in-Chief, "will have to set the course with a more coherent strategy"? When? Between rounds of golf?

Or will this new strategy be prepared by Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett? Not likely. "Senior officials" in the Obama administration are too busy undercutting those perceived as the president's enemies and former faithful servants, who, it is feared, could write additional uncomplimentary memoirs.

Thomas Friedman, "ISIS and Vietnam": When Did Vietnam Ever Call for Lone Wolf Attacks in the US?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "ISIS and Vietnam," Thomas Friedman asks:

"Is jihadism to Sunni nationalism what communism was to Vietnamese nationalism: a fearsome ideological movement that triggers emotional reactions in the West — deliberately reinforced with videotaped beheadings — but that masks a deeper underlying nationalist movement that is to some degree legitimate and popular in its context?"

Compare the Sunni nationalism that motivates ISIS with Vietnamese nationalism? I don't think so.

As reported earlier this month by NBC News in an article entitled "Feds Warn of ISIS-Inspired Threat Against Police, Reporters in US":

"According to a Joint Intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security sent to U.S. law enforcement officials, an ISIS spokesman recorded an audio message that urged lone offenders in Western countries to attack 'soldiers, patrons, and troops … their police, security and intelligence members.' Attackers did not need to 'ask for anyone’s advice' prior to striking, said the message, because such actions are legitimate."

Question for Tom: Did North Vietnam ever call for such attacks within the United States?

Friedman goes on to observe:

"The challenge the U.S. faces in Iraq is trying to defeat ISIS in tacit alliance with Syria and Iran, whose local Shiite allies are doing a lot of the fighting in Iraq and Syria."

Indeed, the behavior of Assad, Khamenei and Nasrallah is no less abominable than that of ISIS. These men are also not friends of the US, notwithstanding the fact that US Secretary of State John Kerry once referred to Assad as "my dear friend." Moreover, Obama's persistent efforts to reach out to Khamenei are frightening. However, this has no bearing on the serious threat posed by ISIS to the US, unless of course you choose to ignore the message of the ISIS spokesman in the audio message.

Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell (Ret.), "We Should Have Tried" to Help Benghazi Consulate: A Blow to Hillary in 2016?

As reported by NBC News in an article entitled "Official: 'We Should Have Tried' to Help During Benghazi Attack" (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/official-we-should-have-tried-help-during-benghazi-attack-n94796) by Carrie Dann, the US military "should have tried" to send help to the Americans under attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, but instead waited for instructions from the State Department:

"A retired military official who served at U.S. Africa Command in Germany during the time of the Benghazi attack says that the United States 'should have tried' to send help to Americans under fire there.

'There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference,' Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell (Ret.) told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 'Well, the discussion is not in the ‘could or could not’ in relation to time, space and capability. The point is we should have tried.'

Lovell also told the panel that U.S. officials knew at the outset of the attack that it was 'hostile action' and not a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video. But as the military weighed its reaction, he said, 'there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what it was that they wanted.'"

And then there is also the recently revealed Rhodes email, which established the "goal" of underscoring "that these protests 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/).

Could these bombshells have an impact upon the chances of Hillary ('What difference does it make") in 2016? Although her nomination will still be a cakewalk, her election is far from assured.

Might she not run? Not a chance. Vanity will conquer reason.

NBC News, "Iran's Ayatollah: Nuclear Talks 'Will Lead Nowhere'": Rouhani, the Executioner of Poets, Is a Moderate?

Okay, it's all over the news that Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei believes that the negotiations between the Islamic Republic and six world powers "will lead nowhere." Yup, after learning that Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad has no intention of turning over his arsenal of chemical weapons for destruction pursuant to the agreement brokered by Putin, Obama is now learning that his deal with Khamenei - which is being hidden from the American public - is not worth the paper on which it is written.

But also shocking is how a naive American press is depicting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a "moderate" or "relative moderate," while informing us of this latest Obama administration debacle. From NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/irans-ayatollah-nuclear-talks-will-lead-nowhere-n32056) (my emphasis in red):

"The election of moderate Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran and his September phone call with President Obama during the United Nations General Assembly buoyed hopes of a new chapter opening between Iran and the West."

Similarly, we are being informed by Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/iran-39-khamenei-says-nuclear-talks-39-lead-093913804.html) (my emphasis in red):

"Rouhani, a relative moderate elected last year on vows to engage the West, revived the nuclear negotiations after years of stalemate under his hardline predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and thus far enjoys the support of Khamenei."

Rouhani is a "moderate"? A "relative moderate"? This maniac, with whom Obama held a "historic" conversation in September, just ordered the execution of a poet and a human rights activist for "enmity against God" after they were first subjected to torture (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Rouhani-orders-executions-of-Iranian-Arab-poet-rights-activist-340173).

I read this trash from NBC News and Yahoo! News and grow nauseous.

Hillary Clinton on Syria: Making a Horse's Posterior of Herself, Again

Hillary has always been far behind the curve. Surely, you remember Hillary's lame defense of Syria's homicidal president, Hafez al-Assad, on March 27 of this year:

"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"? Well, Hillary's back in business. In an interview yesterday with NBC News from Indonesia (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=246121), America's secretary of state declared:

"I think there could be a civil war with a very determined and well-armed and eventually well-financed opposition that is, if not directed by, certainly influenced by defectors from the army."

A civil war in Syria? Oh, really? Perhaps you will recall JG, Caesarea in a blog entry entitled "Syria: The Beginning of a Savage Civil War?" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/syria-beginning-of-savage-civil-war.html) posted on July 18, 2011:

"Assad is a member of the Alawite sect, which comprises some 12% of Syria's population. Until now Bashar al-Assad, and his father before him, maintained power by appointing Alawite officers to key positions in the Syrian army and security agencies.

Alawites have long been deemed heretics by Syria's Sunnis, who comprise some 70% of the population.

Assad is on his way out. However, it remains to be seen whether the Syrian Sunni majority will now seek revenge for years spent under the thumb of the Assads and the 1982 Hama massacre of up to 40,000 Sunnis, which has never been forgotten.

It's not going to be pretty."

In her interview with NBC News, Hillary Clinton went on to say:

"Look, Assad's going to be gone; it's just a question of time."

"Assad's going to be gone, and it's just a question of time"? Oh, really? Perhaps you will recall JG, Caesarea in a blog entry entitled "Taqiyya: When Lying Is Ordained from Above" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/04/taqiyya-when-lying-is-ordained-from.html) posted on April 17, 2011 (three weeks after Hillary called Assad a "reformer"):

"Assad's security forces shot to death 12 more protesters in Homs last night. It is only a matter of time before the Syrian Ba'athist regime collapses."

Thanks, Hillary, for your insightfulness, which has enabled Obama to take US foreign policy to new heights over the past three years. Hillary has declared that she won't remain as secretary of state during a possible Obama second term, and as far as I'm concerned, she can't be gone soon enough.