Tag Archives: John Kerry

Benghazi and Boko Haram: the common delineator is Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

Hillary Clinton at senate hearingBenghazi proved to be a terrible tragedy involving the deaths of four good Americans, as is the current Boko Haram kidnapping of the 270+ girls in Nigeria.

Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in politics, got both of those issues wrong.  She is the common delineator between these two disastrous events.  She had choices to make and she chose poorly; people died as a result of her decisions.

First, Islamists and al Qaeda were responsible for Benghazi but the Obama Administration could not admit their failure because they had just touted that Mr Obama had al Qaeda “on the run,” “decimated” and “on the path to defeat.”

[Another reason I love events immured in YouTube.  You can’t fudge the facts.]

Then came Benghazi and four Americans were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and Demorat coverups.  Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador, said:

A bald-faced lie by the duplicitous to the addled and soft-brained amongst us.

Next: the lie by Mr Obama whilst speaking at the United Nations:

I’m sure that, at the time, al Qaeda was wondering: “just what the hell are you talking about?”  It determined: thanks; you’re playing right into our hands.  We salute you.

Hillary Rodham Clinton continued to enable the duplicitous Benghazi Meme:

Whilst Demorats did their best to minimize the importance of the Benghazi deaths, Conservatives continued to insist that those four deaths had importance and that we as a nation and government needed to understand and recognize our mistakes in order that those mistake not reoccur and that the four deaths were not meaningless or in vain.

My posts:

And some base questions: just who told Hillary Rodham Clinton to blame the video?  Where was she at the time of the attack?  Where was Barack Hussein Obama?  Why the so very long response time for our citizens?

Perhaps now — with this Select Committee — there might be a slight opportunity for the truth to unveil itself?  Because, after all, the more people try to stonewall, the more there must be to know.

Now that Boko Haram has revealed its true Islamist and Sharia Law bent, people in the United States are starting to become “upset.”

But let’s go back, shall we, to the nexus of Boko Haram and Hillary Rodham Clinton, in terms of her refusing — as Secretary of State — to quantify Boko Haram as an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization).

Josh Rogin at TheDailyBeast.com wrote:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

But whose inaction spurred on the attackers?  Her own in 2012.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Who actually placed Boko Haram on the FTO list?  Of all people, John Kerry, after a series of Christian church bombings in Nigeria.

Let me unequivocally state that the kidnapping occurred roughly one month ago, on April 14th.  One month.  Yet the dainty sensibilities of Leftists weren’t upset until last week.

When Leftists do something, they are being good.  When Conservatives do something they are being “partisan.”

Further (you’ll love this): here’s a long forgotten point from MoveOn.org: their poll to urge then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not to declare Boko Haram a terrorist group:

MoveOn.org Petition Boko HaramThis is an amazing bit of defeatist pussified crap from people who are predominantly cowards.  They advocate “dialogue.”  There is no “dialogue” with terrorists or Islamists or criminals or psychopaths.  They want what they want when they want it and couldn’t care less about “dialogue.”  They only care about two things: 1) their strength and 2) your weakness.

Cowardly Leftist EmosA “hashtag” #BringBackOurGirls won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls — including Christian girls — at all.  It merely serves to dupe and assuage the senseless Emos amongst us.

Michelle Obama -- Bring Back Our GirlsMichelle Obama holding up a sign won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

A nice discussion between John Kerry and Boko Haram leaders around a nice ebon table and some soothing cups of tea won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

How can the Leftists decry Boko Haram and yet refuse to let Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak at Brandeis University — a woman who is a clear critic of Boko Haram, al Qaeda and Islamists?  Muslims who in turn believe in female genital mutilation and honor killings?  By Muslims who think that women are nothing more than chattel?  How hypocritical can that be?  How insane can that be?  Boko Haram is only worth criticism when young girls are threatened?

On that note: apparently the killing of fifty-nine little boys by Boko Haram in February of this year doesn’t count at all.  I don’t see Michelle Obama holding up a sign saying #bringbackourboys.  Nor do I see celebrities all a-twitter on Twitter even mentioning that horrible incident.

Why?  I submit because it’s about little boys, not little girls.  Little girls kidnapped = Huge Deal.  Little boys killed and burned to the bone = no deal at all.

Thank you Leftists.

Thank you Hillary Clinton.

BZ

P.S.

Everything You Need To Know About The Schoolgirl Kidnapping In Nigeria is here.

 

 Share

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack

Posted on by

Gas Attack, Sarin[Note from BZ: The 76-year-old Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer award winner, a George Orwell and Polk winner, who exposed the My Lai massacre in 1969 and reported on Abu Ghraib as well.  He is no shill for Republicans or Conservatives whatsoever.]

From YahooNews.com:

by Adrian Lee

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has dropped yet another bombshell allegation: President Obama wasn’t honest with the American people when he blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack in that killed hundreds of civilians.

In early September, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had proof that the nerve-gas attack was made on Assad’s orders. “We know the Assad regime was responsible,” President Obama told the nation in an address days after this revelation, which he said pushed him over the “red line” in considering military intervention.

But in a long story published Sunday for the London Review of Books, Hersh — best known for his exposés on the cover-ups of the My Lai Massacre and of Abu Ghraib – said the administration “cherry-picked intelligence,” citing conversations with intelligence and military officials.

That was, if you recall, the predicating event that Mr Obama wanted to use for an incursion into Syria including placement of “boots on the ground.”

Mr Hersh writes (from the London Review of Books):

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

Please read both articles entirely.  And please see my posts on Syria here and here and here and here and here.

Proving, once again, that Obama is

Obama, Lying to AmericaAnd that he is a

Obama - Dangerously Incompetent WAR MONGERIt turns out that Mr Obama is in fact a dangerous war monger.

BZ

 

 

 Share

Krauthammer on the Iran agreement: “it’s the worst deal since Munich”

Posted on by

First, Charles Krauthammer is referring to the deal recently negotiated via SOS John Kerry and the nation-state of Iran.

Mr Krauthammer weighs in:

[TRANSCRIPT]

Charles Krauthammer:

It’s really hard to watch the President and the Secretary of State and not think how they cannot be embarrassed by this deal. Think about this. Half a dozen times, the Security Council has passed resolutions which said Iran has to stop all enrichment otherwise there will be no change in sanctions, no relief. Which means six times China and Russia — not exactly hardliners on Iran — have signed on to this.

And what is the result of this agreement? Iran retains the right to enrich. It continues to enrich during the six months. It is promised a final deal in which we’re going to work out the details of its enrichment. And remember, enrichment is the dam against all proliferation. Once a country anywhere can start to enrich there is no containing its nuclear capacity. So it undermines the entire idea of nonproliferation and it grants Iran a right it’s been lusting for for a decade. That’s why there was so much jubilation in Tehran over this.

Second, there’s a relaxation of sanctions which have really caused the Iranians to hurt, to worry about the stability of the regime, and to come and negotiate. What happens on sanctions? There’s going to be a huge infusion of cash which can reduce the inflation, can alleviate the shortages. Already the rial, the currency, jumped three percent instantly as a result of this agreement. This is a huge relief for the Iranians, and it can only increase over time. What do we get in return? I just heard the Secretary of State say we’re going to get a destruction of the 20 percent uranium. That is simply untrue.

What’s going to happen is the 20-percent enriched uranium is going to be turned into an oxide so it’s inoperative. That process is completely chemically reversible, which means Iran holds on to its 20 percent uranium and can turn it into active stuff any time it wants. This is a sham from beginning to end. It’s the worst deal since Munich.

Adolph Hitler and Neville ChamberlainAnd Charles Krauthammer, with whom I sometimes disagree, is completely correct in this case.  The Iranians have quantified the so-called “agreement” as not only a “win” for Iran but, now, they are saying the Spite House lied.

No precedent for that, eh wot?

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

by Adam Kredo

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.

Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented

The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

Translation: Iran will do what it wants when it wants and the so-called “deal” negotiated by John Frigging Kerry means less than sputum from your lungs.

One crucial question to the following paragraph:

“There’s nothing built on trust,” Kerry said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We’re not sitting here pretending that Iran is going to suddenly turn over a new leaf. We have to prove it. And our structure in this agreement, I believe, will adequately prove it.”

If you don’t trust Iran, then why did you negotiate with Iran?  And, further, what is IN this deal for the United States?

Sometimes the simple questions are too obscure.

BZ

 

 

 Share

Syria: some sources indicate US strikes to begin within 24 hours

Posted on by

Evil US vs President AssadAnd Greta Van Susteren is on early and extended.

I still say: going into Syria is completely unnecessary and wrong.  It will be a quagmire to be used against the United States.  I don’t see good things coming out of this for either the US or Israel.  Mostly, Mr Obama couldn’t care less about either one.

Syria AttackAssad knows we’re coming, he reads newspapers too.  Whatever strategic materiel may have existed in specific places — are now quite likely moved.  Just as Syria received the WMD and gas from Iraq under Saddam Hussein.  Where, for example, do you think Syria acquired the gas for their most recent play time?

When you broadcast a time and a date, Mr Obama, then people will respond.  You are apparently transparent in your transnational attacks, but opaque when dealing with domestic issues.  How nice to know.

And smacking Syria, roughly a week after the event, is like walking up to your dog — a week after he shat in your boots — and smacking him with a newspaper.  It’s pointless.

The dog doesn’t make the connection, nothing is learned, behavior isn’t corrected, and the dog begins to make plans to kill you in your sleep.

BZ

Obama & Syria

 

 Share

Pentagon Shoots Down Kerry’s Syria Airstrike Plan

Posted on by

120510-D-NI589-432There have been any number of movies portraying the American military as inept, bloodthirsty, bent on killing, incompetent, blundering, blithering idiots.

And frequently those adjectives are completely applicable to the civilian overlords of our military forces.  To wit, from Bloomberg.com:

Pentagon Shoots Down Kerry’s Syria Airstrike Plan

By Jeffrey Goldberg Jun 18, 2013 12:40 PM PT

Twenty years ago, in a debate over the war in Bosnia, Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, issued a challenge to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. Albright wanted the U.S. to confront an aggressive Serbia; Powell and the Pentagon were hesitant. Albright grew frustrated: “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright asked. Powell later said that he thought Albright was going to give him an aneurysm.

An issue of the civilian federal government simply declaring that there will be faeries and unicorns issuing from the US military.

But the response from a US Army General, Martin Dempsey, who may actually possess an intact and full set of testicles?  Read on:

Dempsey informed Kerry that the Air Force could not simply drop a few bombs, or fire a few missiles, at targets inside Syria: To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria’s integrated air-defense system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties. At a time when the U.S. military is exhausted, and when sequestration is ripping into the Pentagon budget, Dempsey is said to have argued that a demand by the State Department for precipitous military action in a murky civil war wasn’t welcome.

As in: we did this before.  As in: you Blithering Idiots may want to re-think doing this again.

BZ

P.S.
How to do it?  Perhaps people could actually read Popular Mechanics.

Finally: NOT interfering in Syria is not inherent “Isolationism.”  I portray it as simple common sense.

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense K.T. McFarland said:

“The cardinal rule in Washington is that if you have two enemies fighting each other, do not try to step in and stop them.”

 Share