This guy is a shoe in! If the shoe fits wear it!
===
Humor can shape a nation, humor can reflect a nation, humor can deflate a nation. Where is Johnny Carson when we need him and where is Archie Bunker and Edith,,Groucho and Will Rogers?
Click on and laugh til you cry:: http://www.chonday.com/Videos/funny-mexican-guy-with-groucho-marx#.UfVbmBN44QQ.email
And then:
Never Squat With Your Spurs On -
Will Rogers
Will Rogers, who died in a 1935 plane crash in Alaska with bush pilot Wiley Post He was one of the greatest political country/cowboy sages this country has ever known. Some of his sayings:1. Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco.
2. Never kick a cow chip on a hot day.
3. There are two theories to arguing with a woman,
Will Rogers, who died in a 1935 plane crash in Alaska with bush pilot Wiley Post He was one of the greatest political country/cowboy sages this country has ever known. Some of his sayings:1. Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco.
2. Never kick a cow chip on a hot day.
3. There are two theories to arguing with a woman,
... Neither works.
4. Never miss a good chance to shut up.
5. Always drink upstream from the herd.
6. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
7. The quickest way to double your money is to fold it and put it back into your pocket.
8. There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading.
4. Never miss a good chance to shut up.
5. Always drink upstream from the herd.
6. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
7. The quickest way to double your money is to fold it and put it back into your pocket.
8. There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.
9. Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
10. If you're riding' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.
11. Lettin' the cat outta' the bag, like toothpaste, is a whole lot easier'n puttin' it back.
9. Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
10. If you're riding' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.
11. Lettin' the cat outta' the bag, like toothpaste, is a whole lot easier'n puttin' it back.
Now for some English humor:
| In church I heard a lady in the pew next to me saying a prayer. |
Dear Lord, This has been a tough two or three years.
You have taken my favourite actor Patrick Swayze.
My favourite pop singer MichaelJackson.
My favourite Blues Singer Amy Winehouse.
My favourite actress Elizabeth Taylor.
My favourite football manager Bobby Robson.
My favourite golfer Seve Ballesteros.
And now my favourite singer Whitney Houston.
I just wanted you to know that my favourite politicians are Alec Salmond, Tony Blair, David Cameron, George Osborne, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown & Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband. ( in no particular order ) Amen
===
Congress warns Obama re Iran Nuclear Deal.
But will he listen and heed?
Based on his arrogance, not likely!
Could it force Israel's hand? Stay tuned. See 1 below.)
Dennis Ross has a somewhat 'swing both ways 'history when it comes to Israel. (See 1a below.)
===
And so my son said! (See 2 below.)
Obama seems far more interested in seeking votes among the college indebted class than responding to the consequences of his 'premature withdrawal' from Iraq.
We have gone, in the past 6 or so years, from a disaster a year, to a disaster every six months, to a monthly disaster and now it seems a disaster de jour.
So much for incompetence and feckless leadership.
When does it stop and what will be the aftermath is anyone's guess?
For sure, America's position of leadership through strength has been dealt a severe blow and no doubt leaders in China, along with those of various radical Islamist groups are taking note. That does not bode well for America or its former allies who have to be confused and discouraged about what we stand for. and can be counted on. (See 2a below.)
===
Senate cop outs? You decide! (See 3 below.)
===
What difference does it make? Could be plenty! (See 4 below.)
===
Have out of town company, long tie friends so have a great weekend.
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
|
| WASHINGTON -- Leaders in the House of Representatives have written a letter to US President Barack Obama suggesting a pact with Iran restricted to its nuclear program is not enough for the chamber to lift sanctions on the country. The leading Democrat and Republican of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) and ranking member Eliot Engel (D-NY), wrote the letter intended to remind the White House of Congress' role in any future nuclear pact forged with Iran: specifically, the legislature's role in easing, lifting or repealing sanctions levied against the Islamic Republic. Attained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, the letter outlines what Engel has referred to in the past as the "minimum requirements for a good deal," noting that any deal "demands congressional approval." "The concept of an exclusively defined 'nuclear-related' sanction on Iran does not exist in US law," the letter reads. "Almost all sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program are also related to Tehran’s advancing ballistic missile program, intensifying support for international terrorism, and other unconventional weapons programs." An interim deal reached in November with Iran, temporarily freezing the international impasse, requires the Congress to refrain from passing any new "nuclear-related sanctions" as world powers attempt to negotiate a comprehensive solution to the crisis. "Iran's permanent and verifiable termination of all of these activities— not just some— is a prerequisite for permanently lifting most congressionally-mandated sanctions," the letter continues. The Obama administration acknowledges the importance of Congress' role on Iran, and says that any future nuclear deal will likely involve sanctions relief requiring both legislative and executive action. The timeframe for that action, however, is still undefined, as is the nuclear deal in its entirety: drafting was set to begin in May towards completion on July 20, and yet the writing process has yet to begin. The international community, represented at the table by the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany, suspect Iran's vast nuclear program has military dimensions. The letter notes that, in recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, US Secretary of State John Kerry has acknowledged any deal with sanctions relief would require Congress' consent "by law." The lawmakers "urge greater consultation with Congress on a potential sanctions relief package," it reads. Responding to the Post, administration officials contend that sanctions are, indeed, adequately demarcated based on human rights abuses, sponsorship of terrorism, drug trafficking and proliferation of unconventional weapons by the Treasury Department. On Thursday, at a hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, leadership from both parties weighed the consequences of a bad deal with Iran and its possible repercussions for a region in borderless turmoil. Committee chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said that any deal should include the dismantlement of thousands of centrifuges, the elimination of a majority of Iran's low-enriched uranium, a closure of its heavy-water plutonium reactor in Arak and a termination of Iran's vast nuclear research and development program. A strict deal with constant inspections should last for more than twenty years, Menendez said, "at least as long as Iran has been lying to the world about its program." Furthermore, containment of Iran's ambitions after the signing of a deal will be yet another struggle for the United States, Menendez noted, as sanctions relief will enable Iran to enrich terrorist proxies across the region serving its interests. “I think all of us want to see a diplomatic solution. I don’t think there’s anybody on this dais that wants to see anything different from that," Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), ranking member of the committee, said. "I think all of us have been pretty stunned, on the other hand, at the terms of the interim agreement and find it difficult for us to get to a good end state.” Testifying before the committee, Dennis Ross, a former diplomat in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations now the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he considered the achievement of a deal unlikely. "Ali Khamenei either is not prepared to roll back Iran’s nuclear program or doesn’t believe he will have to do so in order to produce a serious roll-back in the sanctions regime," Ross said, adding, "the Iranian negotiators at this point have given no indication of being able to accept such a roll-back." Ross, who worked under Clinton as a special coordinator on US foreign policy on the Middle East, suggested that Israel would "welcome" a deal that precludes the Iranians from being able to turn a civil nuclear program into a nuclear weapons capability. "Unlike the Saudis, the measure for the Israelis is what kind of deal is reached. The Saudis will be suspicious of any nuclear deal; for the Israelis, it depends on the deal." 1a) Former US Diplomat: Consider Giving Israel Bunker-Busters to Hedge Against > Nefarious Iran
n
>
> WASHINGTON — The United States should consider giving Israel bunker-buster
> bombs and other weaponry as a hedge against Iran developing a nuclear
> arsenal, says an influential former US diplomat.
>
> Dennis Ross, who has served Republican and Democratic presidents in a number
> of roles, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he doubts Iran and the
> US will strike a deal on Tehran’s nuclear program before a July 20 deadline.
>
> He told the panel that US officials must make clear to Iranian leaders they
> must give up their entire nuclear program or there will be no deal. Ross
> said Iran wants to reach a deal and expand its program.
>
> Ross told the senators that if a deal is reached, US officials should
> discuss with their Israeli counterparts steps Washington is prepared to
> implement should Tehran “cheat.”
>
> “With the Israelis, if there is a nuclear deal, we could discuss the
> specific steps we would take if the Iranians cheat on a deal and how we
> would impose consequences -- even anticipating that there might be
> reluctance on the part of others to hesitate in the face of violations of
> the agreement,” Ross said.
>
> “We might also compensate the Israelis if there is a deal by providing more
> bunker-buster bombs and more tankers to make them more capable of militarily
> acting on their own against the Iranians in the face of cheating,” Ross
> said. “This would reassure the Israelis that even if we felt constrained to
> act militarily in the face of Iranian violations of an agreement that made a
> breakout possible, Israel would not be left without options.”
>
> Panel members raised concerns outside of Iran’s atomic arsenal aims --
> specifically, that Tehran is beginning to forge alliances across the Middle
> East.
>
> Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said he is concerned about signs
> that Iran’s isolation from Arab states “may be melting away as anticipation
> of a deal nears.”
>
> Menendez said Iranian officials have recently been invited to a number of
> high-level meetings in the Middle East, and some were invited to the
> inauguration of the new Egyptian president.
>
> Ross assured Menendez that US allies like Saudi Arabia remain skeptical of
> Iranian leaders. On Egypt, Ross said the new regime there “won’t do anything
> on Iran that will upset the Saudis” because “the Saudis are their primary
> banker right now.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) Islamist Militants Aim to Redraw Map of the Middle East Governments Under Siege as ISIS Seeks to Impose Vision of SingleRadical Islamist State
ISIS militants are shown after allegedly seizing control of an Iraqi army checkpoint in northern Iraq, in an
image posted on a jihadist website. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
At an annual security conference in Israel this week, the head of the military showed pictures of two
long-dead diplomats.Mark Sykes, an Englishman, and François Georges-Picot, a Frenchman,
secured their place in history by cutting a deal that drew the borders of the modern Middle East.
The point of recalling the men: It suddenly appears those century-old borders, and the Middle Eastern
states they defined, are being stretched and possibly erased.
"This entire system is disintegrating like a house of cards that starts to collapse," Lt. Gen. Benny
Gantz said.
A militant Islamist group that has carved out control of a swath of Syria has moved into Iraq,
conquering cities and threatening the Iraqi government the U.S. helped create and support with billions
of dollars in aid and thousands of American lives.The group—known as the Islamic State of Iraq and
al Sham—isn't a threat only to Iraq and Syria. It seeks to impose its vision of a single radical Islamist
state stretching from the Mediterranean coast of Syria through modern Iraq, the region of the Islamic
Caliphates established in the seventh and eighth centuries.
Governments and borders are under siege elsewhere, as well. For more than a year, Shiite militias
from Lebanon have moved into Syria and operated as a virtual arm of the Syrian government.
Meanwhile, so many Syrian refugees have gone in the opposite direction—fleeing into Lebanon—that
Lebanon now houses more school-age Syrian children than Lebanese children.
And in Iraq, the Kurdish population has carved out a homeland in the north of the country that—with the
help of Turkey and against the wishes of the Iraqi government—exports its own oil, runs its own
customs and immigration operations and fields its own military, known as the Peshmerga.
The picture is difficult for the U.S., which is deeply invested in keeping the region stable, and the rapidly
deteriorating situation in Iraq is setting off alarm bells inside the Obama administration. The U.S. is
weighing more direct military assistance to the government of Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, the White
House said Thursday, and officials hinted that aid might include airstrikes on militants who have
edged to within a half-hour's drive of Baghdad.
"There will be some short-term immediate things that need to be done militarily," President Barack
Obama said. "Our national security team is looking at all the options." Mr. Obama also urged Iraq's
Shiite-dominated government to seek political paths for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to work together
against jihadists. "This should be also a wake-up call for the Iraqi government," he said.
Why are the borders of today's Middle Eastern states suddenly so porous and ineffectual?
In short, the conflicts unleashed in Iraq and Syria have merged to become the epicenter of a struggle
between the region's historic ethnic and religious empires: Persian-Shiite Iran, Arab-Sunni Saudi
Arabia and Turkic-Sunni Muslim Turkey. Those three, each of whom has dominated the whole of the
Middle East at one time or another in past millenniums, are now involved in the battle for influence from
the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.
Saudi Arabia, for example, refuses to recognize the Shiite government of Iraq, backs an array of
almost exclusively Sunni Muslim rebel groups in Syria and bitterly opposes the Shiite Hezbollah.
Iran conversely, is the biggest backer of the Shiite-linked Syrian regime, has forged deep ties to the
Shiite-dominated Iraqi government and assures that Hezbollah, which Iran's Revolutionary Guards
nurtured from its birth in the early 1980s, remains impressively armed and trained.
The U.S. also has played a role. In the wake of 9/11, it toppled Saddam Hussein, who had no
connection to the attacks, and launched an effort to remake Iraq as a first step to transform the region.
The Arab uprisings three years ago ousted more iron-fisted rulers, whose authoritarian regimes had
kept ethnic and religious tensions in check. Syria's uprising reached no resolution, and instead
morphed into a festering civil war. Both sides have turned to religious and ethnic propaganda and
brutality to maintain their advantage.
The U.S. straddles some of the divisions. It supports the Shiite government it helped create in Iraq, for
example, while denouncing the Shiite-linked Syrian regime. Its toppling of an Iraqi leader and
encouragement of sectarian rule has helped fan tensions along religious and ethnic lines. The U.S.
further undermined indigenous authority with its long, troubled occupation of Iraq as it sought to rebuild
the country.
Broader changes in the global power structure also have helped unleash change. For decades, the
Middle East was locked in place by the Cold War and petro politics. The U.S. supported countries
opposed to the Soviet Union and rich in oil—Persian Gulf monarchies, Jordan and Egypt starting in
the mid-1970s—while the Soviets supported their friends—Syria, Iraq, Libya at times and South
Yemen. The U.S. backed a lot of anti-democratic and despotic regimes, but the result was relative
stability.Now, though, the Cold War framework has been shattered, and the growth of new energy
sources elsewhere has reduced the premium placed on stability.
The trouble for the U.S. and regional powers is that the conflict may have outrun their control, fueled
by the rise of the most pernicious groups in chaotic conditions.
ISIS is a threat for both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but its easy conquests over the past week—including
Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city—were made possible by governments hobbled by years of insurgency and opposition aided by those two countries and like-minded Arab Gulf residents.
Iran, for its part, has encouraged Shiite Muslim militia groups so extreme and violent, and often intent
on targeting Sunni Muslims, that many Sunnis are willing to endure ISIS if it provides the protection their own government won't.
The mess puts Mr. Obama in a box. A few weeks ago he laid out in a policy speech his rationale for
staying out of the mire of such sectarian conflicts, since they seem far removed from concrete U.S.
interests. Yet, he now seems to acknowledge the U.S. must do something.
The danger for the president is the U.S. are being drawn back into the fray, but with very few options,
never mind good ones.
2a) Obama revealed, finally
By Caroline B. Glick
For nearly six years, Obama and his supporters have managed to fend off allegations that his foreign policy is even more ideological - and far more radical - than Bush's by channeling the public's aversion to pie-in-the-sky rhetoric and obfuscating facts.
US President Barack Obama is an artist of political propaganda. Both his greatest admirers and his most vociferous opponents agree that his ability to manipulate public opinion has no peer in American politics today.
So how can we explain the fiasco that is his decision not only to swap five senior Taliban terror masters for US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, but to take ownership over the decision by presenting it to the American people in a ceremony with Bergdahl's parents at the White House Rose Garden? Clearly Obama overreached. He misread the public's disposition.
This much is made clear by the immediate criticism his actions received from the liberal media. It wasn't just Fox News and National Review that said Obama broke the law when he failed to notify Congress of the swap 30 days prior to its implementation.
It was CNN and NBC News.
MSNBC commentators criticized the swap. And CNN interviewed Bergdahl's platoon mates who to a man accused him of desertion, with many alleging as well that he collaborated with the enemy. It was CNN that gave the names of the six American soldiers who died trying to rescue Bergdahl from the Taliban.
What was it about the Bergdahl trade tipped the scales? Why is this decision different from Obama's other foreign policy decisions? For instance, why is the public outraged now when it wasn't outraged in the aftermath of the jihadist assault on US installations in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered? Politically, Obama emerged unscathed from failures in every area he has engaged. From Iraq to Iran to Syria to Libya to Russia and beyond, he has never experienced the sort of across the board condemnation he is now suffering. His political allies and media supporters always rallied to his side. They always explained away his failures.
So what explains the outcry? Why are people like Senator Dianne Feinstein, who have been supportive of Obama's nuclear appeasement of Iran, up in arms over the Bergdahl swap? There are three aspects of the Bergdahl deal that distinguish it from the rest of Obama's foreign policy blunders.
First, the Bergdahl deal was conducted in an unlawful manner and the White House readily acknowledged that it knowingly broke the law by not informing Congress 30 days in advance of the swap. This brazen lawbreaking angered Obama's loyal allies in Congress who, like Feinstein, were insulted by his behavior.
Second, Obama initiated the story and made himself the sole owner of the swap.
Obama didn't have to make the Bargdahl swap a story about his foreign policy. He chose to. As commentators have argued, if Obama had simply ordered the Defense Department to issue a press release announcing the swap the story probably wouldn't have caused more than the normal amount of controversy.
And whereas Benghazi was a story about jihadists attacking, and Obama was pilloried - and defended - for his response to an act of aggression initiated by US enemies, Obama presented the Bergdahl swap as his brainchild. So it is impossible to blame anyone else for this move, or wish it away.
As the administration saw it, the public would rally around the leader over this feel-good story. Obama obviously believed that the Bergdahl trade would help him to surmount his opponents' criticism over the Veterans' Administration scandal and other issues.
And this is where his failure to understand the disposition of the American people comes into play.
The third aspect of the swap that distinguishes it from his other foreign policy failures is that by organizing the ceremony at the Rose Garden, and making it a story about himself, Obama denied his supporters the tools they have used in every other instance to explain away his failures and justify his counterproductive decisions.
Obama sailed into office by presenting himself as a non-ideological pragmatist. Obama recognized that the public was tired of foreign policies based on ideology. George W. Bush lost public support for the war in Iraq, and for his foreign policy goal of bringing freedom to the Islamic world more generally, when his ideologically charged rhetoric of American exceptionalism stopped matching the situation on the ground.
A year after Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, the sight of US military contractors being lynched in Fallujah soured the public on American exceptionalism. In Obama, they hoped that they found the antidote to Bush - a man who promised to replace ideology with hard-nosed pragmatism.
In the event, Obama turned out to be even more driven by ideology than Bush was. Obama is the anti-Bush not because he matches Bush's ideology with pragmatism. He is the anti-Bush because he matches Bush's grand foreign policy based on American exceptionalism with his own grand foreign policy based on American moral deficiency.
He made this clear most recently at his commencement address at West Point last month where he stipulated that "American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can't exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else... ."
As to American exceptionalism, Obama sneered, "What makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions."
But while Obama's critics have pointed out the radicalism at the heart of his foreign policy from the outset of his presidency, his supporters were always able to explain it away.
Obama's appeasement of the Iranians was pragmatic.
We don't want a war there, they say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Subj: 88 Senators Sign Letter - which 12 have not?
The letter to President Obama urging him not to support, in any way, the alliance between
the Palestinian Authority and Hamas has very broad bipartisan support… a total of 88 US
Senators.
Socialist - Bernie Sanders, of course… ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Report: Released Taliban Leader Played Key Role in 9/11 Taliban Strategy One of the five senior Taliban leaders released in the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl played a role in al-Qaida's strategy for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The Weekly Standard reported. Mohammad Fazl, who served as the Taliban's army chief of staff and deputy defense minister, worked with
one of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants to execute a military offensive against the Northern Alliance on
Sept. 10, 2001, according to the Standard.
The successful operation was a key part of the strategy to ensure that opposition to the Taliban in Afghanistan
was weakened. The Taliban was preparing for an anticipated American retaliation immediately following 9/11.
A leaked Joint Task Force Guantanamo threat assessment of Fazl said that he met with Abdul Hadi al Iraqi
to "immediately coordinate an attack with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance," according to the
Standard. The attack was to be carried out the day after al-Qaida assassinated Northern Alliance commander
Ahmed Shah Massoud in a suicide bombing so as to weaken the opposition's morale.
The Standard highlighted that the 9/11 Commission said in its final report that the mastermind of the attacks,
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, confirmed that the offensive Fazl assisted with was a key part of the strategy to
execute the 9/11 attacks.
Despite Fazl's involvement, the Obama administration has insisted that none of the five detainees that were
freed pose any threat to the United States and were not directly involved in the terrorist attacks on the United
States.
"These five guys are not a threat to the United States," former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during an
interview on NBC News last week, the Standard noted.
"They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's up to those two countries to
make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the
bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were
drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody."
Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, also insisted during a June 5 press conference that none of the
former detainees posed any threat to the United States. The Daily Beast reported that John Brennan, director
of the CIA and previously Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser, has argued that the "Taliban Five" were
primarily focused on fighting against Afghans and did not have a record of attacking Americans, the Standard
reported.
Meanwhile, each of the other four members of the Taliban Five were also part of the alliance with the Taliban
that enabled al-Qaida to carry out the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to the Standard.
The magazine said that the leaked files and court documents show that the U.S. government believes that
Khairullah Khairkhwa was linked to bin Laden and oversaw one of al-Qaida's main training camps in
Afghanistan.
Abdul Haq Wassiq served as the deputy director of intelligence for the Taliban and "was in charge of handling
relations with al-Qaida-related foreign fighters and their training camps in Afghanistan," the Standard reported,
citing the United Nations. The camps were a base where al-Qaida trained terrorists for its plots against
America.
Norullah Noori, like Fazl, was also a Taliban military commander and coordinated operations with al-Qaida's
paramilitary forces.
The leaked documents also concluded that Mohammad Nabi Omari planned attacks with al-Qaida against
coalition forces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
No comments:
Post a Comment