Hillary Clinton dodges and deflects question about 911 and George W. Bush

On CBS' Face the Nation, Hillary Clinton was asked about a statement that Jeb Bush made during the Republican debate that his brother kept America safe. Clinton was asked if she agreed with that.

Her answer was one of the most obfuscated, circular non-answer dodges about a pivotal, life altering policy and political event in the country's history as has been given so far on any subject during the presidential campaign season. It was an obvious attempt to skirt the question about the unprecedented failure of a Republican president and to avoid both the truth and political controversy. It was not very becoming.

Clinton's answer to the question of whether George W Bush kept the country safe, was:

 " I think it's a complicated question because of course 911 happened. I was a senator from New York. And I was basically consumed by my resonsibility in my state and in the city.  So it did happen. And then I do give President Bush credit for  trying to bring the country together around  the threats that we did face. I have said the war in Iraq was a mistake.  I supported what happened in Afghanistan.  So if you sort it all out, its a mixed picture".

It was also an attempt to completely avoid answering the question.

Clinton's answer was so farcical, so political and such a dodge in an attempt to avoid the truth for political expediency it deserves to be dissected.

"I think it's a complicated question because of course 911 happened".

Everybody knows  911 happened. And there is nothing complicated about how and why. It was the gross negligence of Bush and Condoleeza  Rice. 

"I was a senator from New York".

Everyone knows that too and that also has nothing to do with the question.

"And I was basically consumed by my responsibility in my state and my city".

Clinton's responsibilities had nothing to do with question which was about Bush's responsibilities. 

"So it did happen".

Repeating what everybody knows  a second time doesnt make it any more of an answer.

"And then I do give President Bush credit for trying to bring the country together around the threats that we did face".

Not only does this not answer the question which had nothing to do with bringing the country together it isnt even true. Bush divided the country over the war in Iraq,  divided the country over the use of torture and divided the country over Gitmo. Bush did nothing to bring the country together and was a nonsense answer to the question Clinton is trying to avoid answering.

" I have said the war in Iraq was a mistake".

No one asked about the war in Iraq.

" I supported what happened in Afghanistan". 

No one asked about Afghanistan either. 

"So if you sort it all out its a mixed picture".

There was nothing mixed about  it. The only thing that needed sorting out was Clinton's answer avoiding the question for political purposes.

It was not a complicated question and it was no mixed picture. And no,  George W. Bush not only didn't keep America safe, it was Bush and Rice's  irrefutable and well documented gross, even criminal negligence, dereliction of duty and malfeasance as president and national security advisor that were responsible for the deaths of 3000 people in a terrorist attack that ultimately changed America and changed the world, one that facts proved would have easily been prevented had Bush acted on the specific intelligence he was given a month before the attack, intellugence that told him that not only was an Al-Qaeda attack against the U.S. in the U.S. imminent, it was going to be "spectacular" and incredibly Bush and Rice were told the attack was going to involve the hijacking of U.S. airliners. And they did nothing. 

Clinton's answer had nothing to do with the question and was a nonsense answer. Saying that 911 happened is a non-answer . So was what she did as a senator which had nothing to do with whether Bush kept the country safe when all the facts show he didnt. Bush and Rice had been handed all the intelligence they would have needed to prevent 911 and ignored it. 

There was nothing to "sort out". It was a  clear attempt at a non-answer answer to  avoid the truth and avoid a controversy that at least Donald Trump to his credit was not afraid to tackle . 

Clinton's dodge was possibly because she knows Democrats would faint dead away before standing up to the truth had she told it.And that Republicans might attack her.

There is not a shred of doubt that Bush, Rice and Cheney were responsible for allowing  the worst attack with the worst loss of life on American soil by a foreign enemy in the history of the United States. And they have never been held accountable. For those who have always been angry that neither Democrats, the news media and certainly not Republicans have ever held Bush accountable it was a chance for Clinton to do so. Especially as a senator fromNew  York. She declined .

It is this ridiculous reluctance or fear on the part of Democrats to criticize Republicans with the truth that is why Democrats lose elections. And make them look weak. Or foolish as Clinton's non answer answer did.

George W. Bush did not keep us safe and it was no mixed picture. And Bush compounded the problem with Iraq, where he used the 911 attack as the excuse to invade Iraq which neocons had wanted to do for years as Richard Clarke testified when he was literally ordered by Cheney to find a connection between the attack and Sadaam even though Clarke testified he told Cheney Sadaam had nothing to with it, it was Al-Qaeda. This is public knowledge.

In addition, the senate report by the Senate Intelligence Committee when Democrats had the majority proved beyond any doubt that the Bush administration used torture in violation of American values and U.S. law by the CIA  which was unnecessary and  ineffective and no actionable intelligence was ever gotten as a result of water boarding or "enhanced interrogation techniques". Every piece of valuable intelligence was gotten through conventional interrogations. Clinton could have said that too. And been a hero.

Instead Clinton gives us her nonsensical answer about Bush and keeping America safe.  It's called playing not to lose. Which is always a recipe for disaster.

Bush not only didn't keep us safe his administration was directly accountable for the deaths of 3000 people on Sept 11 as the 911 Commission exposed and then, in a panic, used illegal policies of torture to try and insure there was not a second attack because of the gross negligence regarding the first, the result of the Bush Administration's dismissing terrorism as a threat which  left them unprepared and the country vulnerable. Clinton could have said that too.

It would have been nice if the former Secretary of State who will be asked to testify for the 7th time at the 7th Republican congressional hearing on Benghazi over the deaths of 4 Americans during a terrorist attack would have pointed out a Republican administration's accountability in the deaths of 3000 with no investigations by a Republican congress and said so instead of dodging the question. But that would have been honest. And she is going to run for president. 

  

CNN turns 2nd Republican debate into 3 day promo - for CNN.

With CNN hosting the second Republican  debate, it's clear they are aware of the ratings Fox had with the first. According to Nielsen, a reported 24 million viewers watched the first debates, more than twice the audience for The Walking Dead though if you watched the debates you saw distinct similarities between the two.

But for a news organization who for the last few years has been to journalism what junk bonds are to Wall Street,whose ratings start with a zero,  a potential for 10 million viewers has to be exploited. And so CNN is pulling out all the stops.

For three days anyone turning on CNN would think there was nothing else happening in the world other than this debate. There is virtually nothing else they are talking about and its no accident. Its not a public service decision, CNN hasn't had one of those in 15 years. Its a marketing decision, just like the banners that take up a full third of the bottom of the screen promoting their nighttime entertainment style shows no matter what news story is being covered.

For three days they have even posted that silly countdown graphic that started counting down the time until the debate down to the seconds even when it was 72 hours away.

It is the kind of carnival barker journalism CNN has become with Wolf Blitzer the principle barker, but every other CNN anchor doing the same.

CNN is hoping to build up as much interest in their debate as possible in the hopes of snagging the millions of viewer CNN hasn't seen in two decades.

And they will try and wring every last ratings point they can get meaning they will be talking about nothing else for days after the debate, and then try to figure out more ways to exploit it. Maybe by strapping Martin Savage into the cockpit of Trumps jet a la MH-17.

It will probably have the opposite effect as it always does, driving people away who actually want to get some news.

And just so you don't miss the point, while Fox promoted the debate as " The First Republican Debate", CNN has opted to put in the word "BIG", on screen graphics, referring to it as "Big GOP debate tonight" , kind of like " Big Dance Tonight"  making no bones about what they are hoping for. Which is Big. As in ratings.

CNN has gotten so cheesy  and shameless about it they are doing promos for the debate featuring  interviews with the technicians and crew setting up the technical side of the debate telecast complete with cameras zooming in on sound mixers,  panning shots of the control room,  quick cuts of stage hands putting up lights, and  panning shots of the stage, because they want you to know, this is BIG.

Just in case you didn't get  it from all the other CNN promos.

NOTE:  According to the published Neilsen ratings for the debate, 22 million watched, short of Fox's 24 million but still the largest audience in the 35 year history of CNN.  Which means that if Trump's presidential bid fails you can count on CNN offering Trump the store to have him do a one hour political commentary show on CNN.

George W. Bush commemorates 911 by going on a sports radio talk show.

Back in the 50's there was a TV kids show called Howdy Doody that always opened with Buffalo Bob Smith yelling, " Hey kids, what time is it"?

With George W. Bush going on the sports radio talk show Mike and Mike today, Sept 11, it makes you want to yell, " Hey George what day is it"?

But if you were George W Bush or Condoleeza Rice who play acted National Security advisor in Bush's first term you probably wouldn't want to remember what day it was either.

As the 911 Commission exposed, and a torrent of facts, documents and testimony revealed, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and  Dick Cheney were guilty of the worst case of criminal negligence, malfeasance, and dereliction of duty regarding the national security  of the United States in American history.

From the first day of his presidency as documents and testimony showed, Bush Rice and Cheney dismissed terrorism and Al-Qaeda specifically as a threat to the United States and believed that Bill Clinton had grossly exaggerated the threat. This despite the documents and testimony at the hearings that showed that during the transition period and in his national security briefings, Bush was told by the FBI, CIA, outgoing National Security advisor Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton himself that Al-Qaeda represented the most serious threat to U.S. national security in the world.

In exhibiting the kind of foresight and competence completely absent from the Bush and the Obama administrations, Berger told Bush and Rice that the threat to U.S. security by Al-Qaeda was so great, he predicted that the Bush administration would be dealing with Al-Qaeda more than any other single issue or problem throughout his entire presidency. Bush made sure that became true.

As Karl Rove boasted to Time magazine after Bush's election " The Bush administration is going to be ABC - Anything But Clinton" . If Clinton did it, Rove boasted, Bush was going to undo it. That not only applied to terrorism, in the end it also applied to the economy.

And so Bush, Rice, Cheney even Attorney General John Ashcroft, dismissed every piece of actionable intelligence which would have stopped the 911 attacks in its tracks. In fact the Assistant Director of the FBI testified under oath that when he went to see Ashcroft with what he thought was important information regarding terrorism Ashcroft told him " Don't you ever come into my office with anything related to terrorism again".

CIA intercepts of Al-Qaeda traffic in the summer of 2001, indicated the U. S. was going to be hit with a "spectacular " terrorist attack and Richard Clarke, the White House anti-terrorism chief for 4 presidents, Reagan,Bush 41, Clinton and now George W. Bush, testified that in August of 2001 he and CIA Director George Tenant were so alarmed by the intelligence showing there was going to be an "imminent" and "spectacular" terrorist attack by Al Qeada that he and Tenant were " running around the White House like men with their hair on fire" trying to get Bush and Rice to do something. They never did.

Incredulously,  Bush was also given a national security briefing on August 6,2001 where he was told in a Presidential Daily Briefing that not only was Al-Qaeda going to attack inside the U.S., there were already cells in the U.S., they had office buildings in New York city under surveillance, and so stupefying its hard to believe the news media and Democrats didn't beat the drum for Bush's resignation, Bush was told on August 6,2001 that the means of the Al Qaeda attack was going to involve the hijacking of U.S. airliners.

Bush did nothing. Rice did nothing. They dismissed all of it. And Bush went on vacation to Crawford. 

Had Bush or Rice simply ordered the FAA to issue a high alert to U.S. airports and airlines to be vigilant for a credible threat for potential hijackings by middle eastern men, 911 never would have happened.

The 911 hijackers showed up that day at Dulles and Logan airports all buying one way tickets to San Francisco. None had reservations so had to pay top price of $2500 for a one way ticket. They paid cash. And none had any luggage. And of course  were all middle eastern. What do you think any ticket seller or supervisor at any major airport for any airline would have done when confronted with those sets of facts and circumstances along with  a BOLO (Be On the Lookout) for middle eastern men for potential hijacking threat and to report any suspicious activity?

In fact the ticket seller at the Maine airport testified as much saying on that morning he sold a one way ticket to San Francisco connecting at Logan Airport to a middle eastern man without a reservation who paid the top price of $2500 for a one way ticket and paid cash. He thought it strange since he had never seen anything like that in 20 years at the Maine airport but because there hadn't been any directives, said nothing. The buyer was one of the hijackers.

When Condoleeza Rice was grilled during the hearings by committee counsel Richard Ben Vineste as to why with all that information including the fact that Al-Qaeda was going to hijack airliners, neither she nor Bush did anything , her answer was, " we didn't know the day, we didn't know the date, we didn't know the targets and we didn't know the names of the hijackers. We couldn't connect the dots. And we didn't know they were going to use planes as missiles".

So the National Security advisor to the President of the United States needed to know all that before even ordering or recommending to the president that  the FAA issue an alert? Because they didn't know the planes would be used as missiles? So hijacking airliners and holding hundreds if not thousands of passengers hostage would have been okay? 

Connecting the dots as everyone knows is a child's game. There are a series of dots all numbered and all you have to do is connect them consecutively and you get to see the whole picture. Rice admitted they couldn't, didn't, or wouldn't do it.

Stunningly the news media took Rice's preposterous but revealing answers and turned  a statement of gross incompetence into a term of art with " we couldn't connect the dots" becoming the expression of choice in Washington for years to come and is still used.

That it was an expression of  the worst case of gross incompetence in American history might make it understandable that it was adopted by the news media and politicians.

That both Democrats and the news media were so intimidated that they refused to hold Bush and Rice accountable and force their resignations showed not only cowardice , it led to more disasters like Iraq.  

 It's no secret why the media and Democrats were afraid. Republicans knowing what accountability would have meant for them were ready to accuse anyone attacking Bush as giving aid and comfort to the enemy and questioning their patriotism. And Democrats and the news media knew it and were intimidated. 

If Wolf Blitzer, CNN and other news outlets had gone after Bush, Rice and Cheney with just half the intensity with which  they went after Anthony Weiner over his consensual online sex chats, there never would have been a war with Iraq. 

To date Republicans have held 7 congressional hearings on Benghazi ostensibly because of 4 Americans killed. On the Sept.11,2001 attacks that killed 3000 they did nothing. And not a single Democrat has pointed out the hypocrisy.

If anyone doubts for a second that Bush, Rice and Cheney are aware they were responsible for allowing the 911 attacks consider this: Neither Bush, Rice nor Cheney has ever attended any memorial, service, rememberance  or commemoration of the 911 attacks. Not one in 14 years. Not any anniversary. Not the groundbreaking for 1 World Trade Center which would replace the twin towers. Not the opening of the 911 museum or it's dedication. Not anything in the 14 years since the attack. Because they know the attack succeeded because of their negligence. And had the decency to stay away.

But not from a sports radio talk show on the anniversary of that day.

The Best Way to Tell if the Iran Deal is a Good One or Not.

It's probably fair to say that most people following the controversies over the Iran deal have never actually read it and are relying on what people who have read it on both sides are saying about it.

 

So who's right? Those who support the deal or those who oppose it?

 

Maybe the best way for anyone who hasnt actually read the deal to come to an informed conclusion is to evaluate what each side, especially those in congress who have to vote for or against it,  say in support of or opposition to the deal and base their conclusions on that though the most recent Pew Research poll, as of Sept 9, shows only 21% of Americans support the deal. A bad omen for Democrats.

 

Those who oppose the deal offer these facts:

 

Fact: The deal doesn't prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only delays it. Iran will be able to pursue a nuclear weapon in ten years if it chooses to at best and will have the hundreds of billions in sanctions relief to do so. This doesn't factor in Iran cheating and fooling IAEA inspectors.

 

Fact: The deal lifts the ban on Iran having ICBM's, something General Dempsy, Obama's outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said should never happen, and whose only purpose is to deliver a nuclear warhead at distances as far away as the United States.

 

Fact: The arms embargo will be lifted allowing Iran to buy and sell arms and provide them terrorists around the world, something even Obama admits. 

 

Fact: The former Deputy General of the IAEA has said the inspection arrangment is not nearly good enough and it will be easy for Iran to cheat.And that allowing Iran to inspect itself at sites like Parchin where they had been caught cheating before trying to develop triggers for a nuclear bomb is ridiculous.

 

Fact: Iran said it has no intention of abiding by UN resolution 2231 which supported the deal and said they will not abide by the arms embargo which is to be lifted in a few years..Rouhani said," We will buy weapons anywhere we deem necessary. We won't wait for anybody's  permission or approval and won't look at any resolution.  We will sell weapons to anywhere we deem necessary." And he said it on television.

 

Fact: Rouhani said that the only way there can be middle east peace is for Iran to be able to stand up to its enemies militarily. He said, " How can a weak country  unable to stand up to the military power of its neighbors, rivals and enemies, achieve peace"? (That enemy wouldn't be Israel would it? And since Israel has nuclear weapons, and since Rouhani has pointed out the necessity of Iran being able to "stand up" militarily to its enemies, isn't that  a clear  warning shot that Iran has every intention of eventually developing a nuclear weapon as soon as they can ?)

 

Fact: Throughout the course of the deal Iran will be allowed to declare military sites off limits to inspections and,that only certain declared nuclear sites can be inspected (besides Parchin which Iran will inspect itself)For any undeclared site that is not military the IAEA has 24 days to prove to a 7 country panel there are violations at the site. Of course if they could prove that without inspecting the site there would be no reason to inspect the site. So no wonder Iran loves the deal.)

 

Fact: The deal is heartily endorsed by Iran's president and Iran's top military chief and the Ayatollah

 

Fact: Ayatollah Khamenei said on Sept 9 "Israel will never see the coming 25 years".

 

Those who support the deal and say: 

 

"What's the alternative"?

 

"Anyone who thinks there can be a better deal is living in a unicorn fantasy world"

 

"It's not what I had hoped for".

"It's this deal or war with Iran".

"There is no better deal available now" ( and why does it have to be right  now? There is no better deal available now because this is the deal Obama agreed to and Iran accepted and is thrilled).

 

Wendy Wasserman Schultz: "The White House assured me the inspections can be enforced" (why did she need the White House to assure her? Its the IAEA who does the inspections. It's not clearly spelled out in the deal? And she is voting for the deal based on Obama;s assurances when even he admits he hasn't seen the IAEA protocol made with Iran on inspections?)

 

Jerrold Nadler: "Obama promised me he'll use military force if necessary to stop Iran from getting a bomb" (If necessary?  Isn't  this deal supposed to prevent the need for military force? Wasn't it supposed to be the substitute for military force? Wasn't that the whole point?)

 

Obama: "The people who oppose the deal are the very people whose judgement got us into the war in Iraq" ( so far those who support the Iran deal include Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Colin Powell to name just a few supporting the deal whose judgement  got us into the war in Iraq).

 

Senator Mikulski: "For all it's flaws it's the best way to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon"  (its either the best deal that could have been negotiated or it has a lot of flaws. It cant be both.)

 

MoveOn: Its Republican war hawks who are against the deal ( Like Chuck Schumer, Robert Menedez, Ben Cardin, Joe Manchin Steve Israel,  and Nita Lowery all liberal or moderate  Democrats?)

 

MoveOn;" It's 60 days or its war with Iran!. Those opposing the deal are war mongers who want war." (so those who wanted war with Iran all along need this deal to fall through to start a war they could have started 15 years ago? And if the deal falls through, then what? Obama starts a war? The president who reneged on a pledge for a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons is going to start a war? Who exactly starts this war in 60 days if the deal falls through?)

 

Obama: "Those who oppose the deal have "common cause" with Iran's hardliners"  (like  Iran's top military commander who loves the deal and  who congratulated Assad for humiliating the U.S. and the Ayatollah Khaemeni who has also endorsed the deal?)

 

Obama: "99% of everyone supports the deal"  (CNN polls showed 52% want congress to kill the deal  and in new Sept. 9 Pew Poll only 21%  say they support it).

 

Michigan senator Gary Peters: "despite my serious reservations I will reluctantly vote against a motion of disapproval".(is that a quadruple negative?)

 

Senator Wyden: " This agreement  with the duplicitous and untrustworthy  Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned. It's not the agreement I would have accepted but it's better than no deal at all" (If its not the deal he would have accepted why is he accepting it? And whatever happened to "no deal is better than a bad deal"?)

 

UK Foreign secretary Phillip Hammon: "We want to ensure the nuclear deal is a success by encouraging trade and investment once sanctions were lifted". Really? So all Israel and the U.S. had to do all this time was open a McDonald's in Tehran and make some trade deals and that would have done the trick? Who knew?)

 

Hammond: "There is a huge appetite  (in the UK) both on the part of our  commercial and industrial businesses to engage with the opportunity of Iran opening up and there is a huge appetite  for our financial institutions to support that activity". I bet there is. But don't forget keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That's important too right?

 

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who supports the deal said on Sept.9: " Israel will cease to exist in 25 years. Israel will not see the coming 25 years."  And Netanyahu was worried. How silly. And on improving future relations with the United States and negotiating other issues, Khamenei said, " There will be no future negotiations on anything with the United States. We ousted the Great Satan. We will not let it ( to Khamenie we are an "it") in through the window."

 

Hillary Clinton on supporting the deal: "Diplomacy is the balancing of risk". (No it's not. Diplomacy is not  the balancing of risk. Diplomacy is supposed to eliminate future risks not balance them. Diplomacy seeks  to avoid risks by solving a political or territorial conflict by an agreement between the parties that permanently resolves the conflict without the use of force or other means of conflict to prevent future risk.   It's purpose is to remove and resolve conflicts, threats and future risk not balance it. If there is still a risk Iran can get a nuclear weapon in spite of this deal it's not diplomacy it's stupidity. )

 

On the question of what happens in ten years when the deal expires and Iran has ICBM's, the arms embargo had been lifted,  they have hundreds of billions in sanctions relief and can legally pursue nuclear weapons?

 

John Kerry: "We'll see what happens,  senator".

 

And Democrats wonder why they lose elections?

Buy This Car or It's War With Iran!

There's a good way to tell if the Iran deal is worth buying. And that's by listening to the sales pitches being given by the people selling and how truthful they are.And the endorsements of the people buying.

One way to do that is imagine you're on a used car lot lookking at a car and the salesman gives you the same promises, arguments and assurances on the car you're looking at that Obama, Kerry and their salesforce give on a deal to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And see if you'd buy.

Probably the funniest sales pitch comes from Tea Party Left groups like MoveOn, DFA, ThinkProgress and Daily Kos who will tell you it's  "buy this deal or its war with Iran"! That's right. WAR! They even set up a web site called " 60 Days to Stop a War."A pitch so dishonest it would make any sleazy used car dealer embarrassed.

There will be no war with Iran if the deal is rejected. Who would start it? Iran? Obama?  Who didn't have the backbone to stand up to his own promise of a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons? The only one talking about war with regards to the deal is Obama himself  whose empty  promise to Jerrold Nadler to get him to buy was that he'd use military force if necessary to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. What is more likely is that this deal will almost definitely lead to war when the deal ends in 10 years and Iran will be free to develop a nuclear warhead. 

No one  in America would  buy a used car based on the same arguments and assurances Obama, Kerry and their sales force are making. 

So  imagine youre on the car lot of Barrack and John's Best Deals Anywhere and you're looking at a car but are hesitant and tell the salesman you're just not sure. You don't think it's what you want . And the salesman says," what's the alternative"?

The salesman assures you ," its the best deal you can get anywhere" and that no matter where you go  you'll never get a better deal .

You switch on the ignition and it starts to backfire but the salesman tells you to ignore it, its a small thing that can be fixed.

You ask about the brakes and the salesman tells you they won't actually stop the car only slow it down.  He calls  it  "constraining" the car . But it won't stop it.

You say that's not good enough ,you think  it's too dangerous . But you're told you'll never get a better deal anywhere else. 

Barrack and John have seen buyers wavering before and so come out and personally assure you that you're getting the best deal possible and you can't get a better deal anywhere else.  John tells you despite the flaw with the brakes if you think you can do better deal you're living in a unicorn fantasy world. And they tell you your associate and neighbor Adam Schiff bought the same car and the same deal and so did your associate Bob Casey even though they said it had serious flaws too. But old Bob was willing to accept that the brakes will only constrain the car and not stop it. Because what's the alternative? 

Nancy Pelosi who works in the maintenance and parts department comes out and tells you the same thing.  That you'll never get a better deal anywhere else and if anything goes wrong they'll fix it. She shows you the maintenance  department and you see an Obamacare on a lift, an Isis on a lift, a Yemen on a lift,  a Ukraine on a lift,  a Syria on a lift. But Nancy assures you everything is fine. 

You ask about the warranty and what it covers. Big John explains the warranty is limited.  It only covers what they declare now and that doesn't include the motor. But if something goes wrong you have 24 days to appeal to a seven judge panel, two of whom are the dealers brother-in-law  and they will decide whether or not to fix the problem.

You ask if the car will pass inspection. And John says  he can't be sure . He says if they do the inspection it'll pass. Otherwise "we'll see what happens".

John tells you that another associate, Wendy Wasserman Schultz had the same concerns and was worried the car wouldn't pass inspection but  decided she would buy anyway. She asked to see the part of the contract that covered inspections but Barrack said she couldnt. It was secret. But Barrack  personally assured her that the car could pass inspection. 

You say the deal is not what you had hoped for and John says  "what's the alternative"? John points out the other Democrats who bought and that Senator Coons said it wasn't the deal he had hoped for either. Senator Casey was willing to accept brakes that only slow down and constrain the car but won't stop it but he thought it was worth taking the risk, so why not you? John says Senator  Mikulski  bought the deal even though she said "its flawed but the best deal available"  and Senator Wyden said, " this deal falls short of what I had envisioned " but he's buying anyway too. 

You say that the car and deal has too many flaws, there are no real brakes the warranty is full of loopholes and it might not pass inspection. You say you're  sure there is a better deal out there and John says you're living in a unicorn fantasy world.

Barrack and John tell you just sign on the dotted line and they point to all the Democratic customers who bought the deal even though they all had reservations and weren't happy either.  Because what's the alternative? You won't find anything better across he street. Those guys dont know what they're talking about.  So sign right here. And become the proud owner of a 2015 Unicorn Fantasy. A road hazzard on the road to peace. Made in Iran, the proud sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah. And  the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism. 

For Kim Davis its not about religion or principles, it's about money.

Kim Davis claims its her religious principles that are behind her decision to stay in jail rather than issue the marriage licenses the law and her job require her to do or resign.

Her religious principles have nothing to do with it. She has always been free to resign if she felt that doing the job she is paid to do and required by law to do conflicted with her religious ideas.

So her argument and that of her lawyer, that the first amendment gives her the right to impose her religious principles on the public office she holds and gives her a Constitutional right to deny the rights of others is both laughable and ignorant.

So either she or her lawyer don't understand the Constitution and Supreme Court and other court rulings,  or its about something else. And it's about something else. And that something else is money. And nothing else.

Kim Davis makes $80,000 a year as the county clerk. That amount of money can go pretty far in the part of Kentucky she calls home especially when added to her husbands income. There is probably no other job Kim Davis can do that will pay her that kind of money. And when she said it was a " heaven and hell decision " for her she was right. Because hell would freeze over before she could find another job that would pay her that much money.

She has always had two choices: do the job she was paid to do and the law requires her to do, or resign (she can't be fired because she is an elected official, something that  will come to an end anyway if her contempt conviction makes her ineligible to run again). But resigning means losing the $80,000 a year. So she wants to have it both ways -- refuse to do the job she took an oath to do and is paid to do, ( an oath by the way based on the same religious principles she now has no problem violating) and refuse to resign so she can continue to collect the salary the government pays her to do the job she refuses to do.

If her religious beliefs involved holding her nose and hopping up and down on one foot would she insist that those who want marriage licenses also hold their nose and hop up and down on one foot in the county clerks' office? Would her lawyer insist that is her right? Or does she believe it's her religious beliefs that supersedes everyone else's and the law? 

So Kim Davis sits in jail rather than resign which is the other option given to her by the judge because Kim Davis not only wants to be able to violate the Constitution and other peoples' rights and beliefs she wants to be paid for it too.

Which is why she sits in a jail cell instead of doing the right and moral thing, which is, if the job conflicts with her religious ideas and she cannot carry out her job, resign.

She has refused to do that for only one reason. The money. The $80,000 a year she would rather sit in jail  and collect and take her chances rather than give up.

If there was some legal way to force her to forefiet the money based on her contempt conviction, if the money was cut off never to be reinstated she'd be out of that jail faster than John Dillinger's first escape.

Her attorney Matt Staver said, " she's not going to resign. She's not going to sacrifice her conscience so she's doing what Martin Luther King wrote about it in his letter from the Birmingham jail which is to pay the consequences of her decision". Except Martin Luther King was not sitting in a Birmingham jail  to defend his right to trash gay people or to force the taxpayers of  Alabama to impose his religious views on others. King was in jail for intentionally violating a law that was unconstitutional and trying to force the government to enforce the Constitution and make it means what it says. King sat in jail to force those to uphold the Constitution. Davis sits in jail in contempt of it. And the court that put her there.   If her lawyer thought comparing her to King was going to put her on some moral high ground it just made both of them look ignorant. Her lawyer cites  King's  Letter From the Birmingham jail. But for Kim Davis its more about paying the credit card bills from a Kentucky jail.

The only consequences Kim Davis cares about are the consequences involved with losing the $80,000 a year job if she resigns. That is the principle and the interest keeping her in jail by refusing to resign,  not her conscience. What possible sacrifice of conscience could there be in resigning? None.

As for her claim that the marriage licenses being issued now to gay couples are void because she says so that is characteristic of the arrogance she has exhibited from the beginning when, if truly feeling she could not exercise all the duties she took an oath to perform she could have let her clerks issue them. Or resign. The licenses will be valid anywhere.

For all her claims of religious conscience she seems to be equally ignorant of the bible passage, " render unto Ceasar..". A passage which completely invalidates her position of refusing to issue licenses on religious grounds . So she is in violation of the Constitution, the law , a court order and her religion's teachings.  She sits in jail to keep what Ceaser has been rendering unto her. Which is her $80,000 a year paycheck.

So it's not her conscience she doesn't want to sacrifice. No one was asking her to sacrifice her conscience, no one is compelling her to. And the first amendment which her lawyer likes to invoke is not about her religion or religious beliefs. Its about not allowing any religion including hers to have any government authority regarding any government business or activity that affects any of its citizens.The fact that she thinks her religion is the exception is exactly why Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Adams and the other Founders wanted to protect the U.S. government and its citizens from people like her.

So she sits in jail, not  because it's her conscience she doesn't want to sacrifice,but the $80,000 a year from the taxpayers of Kentucky she doesn't want to sacrifice. And what she thinks would be hell for her if she did.

Democratic support for the Iran Deal: How Democrats lose elections.

According to a head count in the senate and Nancy Pelosi's head count in the House, Barrack Obama now has enough Democratic support to sustain a veto on the congressional rejection of his Iran Deal. Yesterday Democratic senators Coons and Casey announced their unenthusiastic support for the Iran deal with about as tepid and lukewarm endorsement imaginable and  Senator Barbara Mikulski announced her tepid support today giving Obama the 34 votes he needs to sustain his veto -- IF the Democrats who support the deal actually vote that way.And events can always change that.

Curiously none of the Democrats supporting the deal are disputing any of the obvious problems, weaknesses, capitulations and potential failures that have been pointed out by those opposed to the deal but are supporting it anyway.Which is how and why Democrats lose elections .

Coons said of the deal, " its not the deal I would have hoped for", and Casey said that "with all its flaws i believe it will constrain Iran's nuclear program".  Except the point of negotiating a deal in the first place was not to "constrain Iran" from getting a nuclear weapon, but to prevent it. Which makes Bob Casey one more Democrat supporting the deal who shows he has no idea what he's talking about. 

The agreement is good for ten years. After that Iran is free to do as it pleases with its nuclear program (assuming they don't cheat sooner). And in the last few days Iran has celebrated the deal by ratcheting up its threat to destroy Israel.

Which is also how Democrats lose elections. By having Obama policies blow up in their face sometimes before they are even implemented.

That's how and why Democrats were wiped out of congress in 2010 and 2014 over Obamacare by going along with Obama's sell out and capitulations to the insurance companies on the public option (something I predicted was going to happen months before the election if Democrats didn't change course and pass the public option in spite of Obama) and this is what is going to happen to Democrats who support the Iran deal by going along with Obama's sell out to Iran.

When senator Coons says, " this isnt the deal I would have hoped for" and " it was a very close call",  either his hopes were in the unicorn fantasy world Kerry says those who think there could have been a better deal are living in, or he knows the deal isn't what should be but will vote for it anyway.  Which is one more way Democrats lose elections. Just as they did by grudgingly voting for Obamacare instead of insisting on something better. 

Which is why the deal is likely to become an Iranian nuclear Obamacare,  which itself is a massive failure Democrats still haven't come to terms with yet.  Which means more likely than not  a lot of Democrats are going to lose their next election.

Mikulski's non-endorsement endorsement gives Obama the votes he needs to sustain a veto, although Harry Reid, doing the very thing he complains about when Republicans do it which shows what the words, "principle" and "integrity" have meant to Democrats since Obama took office , has vowed to keep the deal from even coming to a vote by using the filibuster if he can get 41 Democrats to support it instead of the current 34. 

But Democrats need to think about what they're doing. No Democrat will ever lose an election voting against this preposterous deal whose supporters either lie about like the dishonest war mongering PR coming out of people like Jo Comerford and Anna Galland at MoveOn,  or those who defend it by showing they have the foresight of a drunken longshoreman by saying " What's the alternative?" as if there is none. Mikulski joined the latter group by reluctantly endorsing it and saying " it's the best option available". Which is like going to a used car lot full of lemons and thinking you have to buy one or you walk. 

When Democrats lose elections its usually because they deserve to by bringing it on themselves, not because their principles are wrong or values are wrong but because they don't live up to them. And when you are supporting the most dishonest and ineffective and untrustworthy president in the history of the Democratic party that is what happens.

Republicans lose elections because their policies usually fail. Democrats lose by not living up to the policies they promise and being true to their own beliefs . Usually because of a failure of leadership.  Like with Obama and Pelosi and Reid. And as a result too many Democrats go along with bad unprincipled decisions that actually violate traditional Democratic principles, common sense and logic in the name of being team players. 

Which is how they lost the House. By letting Nancy Pelosi browbeat them on the Obamacare sell out.  And then they lose not at the hands of Republican voters but at the hands of Democratic ones who express their displeasure,  not by voting Republican as many independents do when Democrats fail,  but by staying home and not voting at all so as not to support polices they oppose. Which is what happened to Democrats in 2010 and 2014 with Obamacare . And was all very predictable. And is likely to happen again over the Iran deal if it passes because of Democratic support.

Twice since Obama was elected I predicted massive Democratic defeats in two elections for the above reasons and I was proved right both times and both were a result of Democrats going along with bad Obama policy. 

General Dempsey, Obama's outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs trashed the Iran deal when he said in testimony to congress that letting Iran have ICBM's (whose sole purpose is to deliver a nuclear warhead,) and lifting the arms embargo " should never happen". Obama let both happen.  The former Deputy General of the IAEA said the inspection regimen is inadquate. In the last couple of days the IAEA has expressed " concern" over satellite imagery showing Iranian construction and heavy equipment at a military facility that the deal says will be off limits to inspections.

How good is this deal? All Democrats need to do is read or listen to the reasons given by other Democrats who support it to know just how bad the deal is and just how shortsighted  and self destructive supporting the deal is. 

These reasons include, " its not the deal I had hoped for", " what's the alternative"? "despite it's many flaws...", "it's the best we can do now" or Kerry's answer to what happens in 10 years when the deal runs out and Iran can pursue a bomb: "we'll see what happens". There is also the promise  Obama made to Jerrold Nadler to get him to support the deal by promising to use "military force" to keep Iran from a bomb which makes fools out of the relentless lying by groups like MoveOn who claim that the deal prevents the use of military force and is supposed to be its alternative. Which shows even Obama knows the deal is nonsense. Or he is.  It also makes Nadler look foolish since its one more disingenuous Obama promise since Obama will be collecting Social Security by the time the deal runs out and Iran will be free to pursue a nuclear bomb.

But the last and most important thing Democrats should keep in mind in whether or not to vote for or against this deal  is something Colin Powell once said about foreign policy when he said, " if you break it you own it". In the case of the Iran deal and  Democrats,  its going to be, if you don't break it you own it. And the consequences that come with it. Some of which are already starting to show their ugly head. And, like going along with Obamacare and Obama's needless concessions to insurance companies which most Democrats didn't support but reluctantly went long with anyway, they will pay for it in the next election.

In an interview with Christiane Ammanour defending the deal John Kerry said: " to show you the myths surrounding the idea that hundreds of billions will go to finance terrorism around the world, they are wrong...it'll only be $50 -55 billion."

Thanks. 

That sounds like General Buck Turdgison in Dr. Strangelove  downplaying U.S. casualties in a nuclear war with Russia by saying, " no more than 10-20 million killed. Tops. Depending on the breaks".

Kerry went on to agree that the money freed up by sanctions relief will in fact go to sponsor terrorism. Just not all of it. Which is certain to make a lot of people opposed to the deal feel better. 

Obama, Pelosi and Reid have led the Democratic Party over a cliff supporting Obama's policies before.  Policies that proved to be failures. And Democrats went along. There is no reason to think it won't happen again over Iran. And every reason to think it will.