Liberals, Press and Media on Trial and Win At Any Price! The Snot Nose White House Dude!

Speaks for itself! (See 1 below.)

===

Liberalism, press and media on trial as well.  (See 2 below.)

===

Gowdy, the right man for the job and he, along with other on this select committee, will make that snot nose White House staff dude eat his words before this investigation is over.

===
Harvard Psychiatrist, Madras Kalifon, analyzes Kerry from afar and concludes he is more hungry for a deal than willing to do what is right. But then is not that what the Obama Administration and his various lackeys are all about? Lie, lie, lie and go the political win at any cost.  After all "what difference does it make?" if America is sacrificed on the altar of politics because winning at any cost is what the game is all about.  (See 4 below.)
===

Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------
1) Obama’s foreign policy of denial

By Charles Krauthammer

Barack Obama’s 949-word response Monday to a question about foreign policy weakness showed the president at his worst: defensive, irritable, contradictory and at times detached from reality. It began with a complaint about negative coverage on Fox News, when, in fact, it was the New York Times’ front page that featured Obama’s foreign policy failures, most recently the inability to conclude a trade agreement with Japan and the collapse of Secretary of State John Kerry’s Middle East negotiations.

Add to this the collapse of not one but two Geneva conferences on Syria, American helplessness in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the Saudi king’s humiliating dismissal of Obama within two hours of talks — no dinner — after Obama made a special 2,300-mile diversion from Europe to see him, and you have an impressive litany of serial embarrassments.

Obama’s first rhetorical defense, as usual, was to attack a straw man: “Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force?”

Everybody? Wasn’t it you, Mr. President, who decided to attack Libya under the grand Obama doctrine of “responsibility to protect” helpless civilians — every syllable of which you totally contradicted as 150,000 were being slaughtered in Syria?

And wasn’t attacking Syria for having crossed your own chemical-weapons “red line” also your idea? Before, of course, you retreated abjectly, thereby marginalizing yourself and exposing the United States to general ridicule.

Everybody eager to use military force? Name a single Republican (or Democratic) leader who has called for sending troops into Ukraine.

The critique by John McCain and others is that when the Ukrainians last month came asking for weapons to defend themselves, Obama turned them down. The Pentagon offered instead MREs, ready-to-eat burgers to defend against 40,000 well-armed Russians. Obama even denied Ukraine such defensive gear as night-vision goggles and body armor.

Obama retorted testily: Does anyone think Ukrainian weaponry would deter Russia, as opposed to Obama’s diplomatic and economic pressure? Why, averred Obama, “in Ukraine, what we’ve done is mobilize the international community. . . . Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world.”

That’s a deterrent? Fear of criticism? Empty words?

To think this will stop Putin, liberator of Crimea, champion of “New Russia,” is delusional. In fact, Putin’s popularity at home has spiked 10 points since the start of his war on Ukraine. It’s now double Obama’s.

As for the allegedly mobilized international community, it has done nothing. Demonstrably nothing to deter Putin from swallowing Crimea. Demonstrably nothing to deter his systematic campaign of destabilization, anonymous seizures and selective violence in the proxy-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk, where Putin’s “maskirovka” (disguised warfare) has turned Eastern Ukraine into a no-man’s land where Kiev hardly dares tread.

As for Obama’s vaunted economic sanctions, when he finally got around to applying Round 2 on Monday, the markets were so impressed by their weakness that the ruble rose 1 percent and the Moscow stock exchange 2 percent.

Behind all this U.S. action, explained the New York Times in a recent leak calculated to counteract the impression of a foreign policy of clueless ad hocism, is a major strategic idea: containment.

A rather odd claim when a brazenly uncontained Russia swallows a major neighbor one piece at a time — as America stands by. After all, how did real containment begin? In March 1947, with Greece in danger of collapse from a Soviet-backed insurgency and Turkey under direct Russian pressure, President Truman went to Congress for major and immediate economic and military aid to both countries.

That means weaponry, Mr. President. It was the beginning of the Truman Doctrine. No one is claiming that arming Ukraine would have definitively deterred Putin’s current actions. But the possibility of a bloody and prolonged Ukrainian resistance to infiltration or invasion would surely alter Putin’s calculus more than Obama’s toothless sanctions or empty diplomatic gestures, like the preposterous Geneva agreement that wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

Or does Obama really believe that Putin’s thinking would be altered less by antitank and antiaircraft weapons in Ukrainian hands than by the State Department’s comical #UnitedforUkraine Twitter campaign?

Obama appears to think so. Which is the source of so much allied anxiety: Obama really seems to believe that his foreign policy is succeeding.

Ukraine has already been written off. But Eastern Europe need not worry. Obama understands containment. He recently dispatched 150 American ground troops to Poland and each of the Baltic states. You read correctly: 150. Each.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) Benghazi: American ‘Liberalism’ and the Mainstream Media on Trial

yRoger L Simon

A couple of weeks ago, the prime minister of South Korea resigned over a tragic ferry accident in his country for which he had no personal responsibility whatsoever.

In the USA, the exact opposite has been happening. Going on two years now, our administration has done nothing but attempt to lie, obfuscate and shift the blame concerning the events in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, during which four Americans were murdered.

But as information dribbles out — most recently the long-hidden email from Ben Rhodes — the extent of this prevarication is reaching a tipping point with even a few representatives of the mainstream media (notably Jonathan Karl of ABC) stepping forward to challenge the administration.

What seems clear at this point is that the administration blamed the Benghazi attacks on a video no one saw in order to distract public attention from the growing militance of al-Qaeda and related groups.  That militance would have been of great embarrassment to a president during an election when his vice president was running around bragging bin Laden was dead and General Motors alive.  

We still do not know why no attempt was made to rescue our people during the attacks since no one knew how long they would go on and why no one has been apprehended for these attacks.  Those are only two of the ongoing mysteries about Benghazi.  Where was the president that night? What did he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talk about in their telephone conversation?  We have heard rumors of gun running, MANPADs and on and on.

But what remains is something tragically simple.  The Obama administration and related entities (State, intelligence, etc.) were willing to lie about the murder of truly heroic American citizens in order to protect their behinds and, more importantly and scandalously, win an election. And people like Candy Crowley of CNN were all too willing to help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) BREAKING: Boehner to Appoint Special Benghazi Committee With Trey Gowdy in Charge

By Katie Pavlich 

After more than two years of stonewalling from the Obama administration, House Speaker John Boehner has confirmed he will appoint a Special Committee to investigate Benghazi with Congressman Trey Gowdy leading the way. The Weekly Standard was the first to report a possible announcement of a Select Committee earlier this morning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)From: "Madras, Bertha Kalifon" <bertha_madras@hms.harvard.edu>

Subject: RE: KERRY STATEMENT URGES THAT 30 YEARS OF SUPPPORT FOR ISRAEL EXPLAINS WHAT HE BELIEVES...NEVER MEANT ISRAEL IS AN APARTHEID STATE.

It is unsatisfactory, diplomatic jargonese, parsing words, and is not a retreat from his previous statement. It not disappointing, but predictable and a window into his mind and indoctrination. 

He desperately wants to be center stage in an agreement, any agreement, and views Israel not from the perspective of a nation trying to negotiate for survival, but as a clever, intractable, reluctant foe of his dreams. He values his dream of a making a mark in history  more than he values accuracy, fairness, objectivity or Israel's survival. He should have stated:

"In a region in which most countries harbor almost exclusively, homogenous populations with a single religion, Islam, in a region which suppresses expression of other religions, in a region that has witnessed the plight and flight of hundreds of thousands of fearful minorities (Christians, Jews, Kurd, Bahais),  in a region that has cavalierly burned and destroyed churches and synagogues, in a region which unti 1967 ruthlessly denied Jews the right to visit and pray at their holiest site (the western wall) until Israelis reconquered the temple wall and yet allowed the perpetrators full control of the temple mount, the relevance of Israel to the concept of apartheid is zero. The current state of Israel is unique, a democracy, a haven for Christians and Muslims who wish to live in nation of and abide by fairly applied laws, healthcare, educational and economic opportunites, and safety. Apartheid is an institutional construct applied to South Africa that created  barriers to separate races by skin color. The only barriers Israel constructs are those designed to protect its population from terrorists. 

Bertha K Madras, PhD

Professor of Psychobiology

Department of Psychiatry

Harvard Medical School

bertha_madras@hms.harvard.edu

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------