Clinton Crafts a Dodge Over Obama Deportations.

The Immigration Service announced on Thursday that a few hundred illegal immigrant families identified by courts as being illegal are going to be hunted down and deported starting next month.

 

The Republican response was to wonder whether Obama is doing it as a political ploy in response to Trumps caustic comments on illegal immigrants, and while they applaud it, they are cynical as to Obama's motives.

 

On the Democratic side both Sanders and O'Malley expressed their clear opposition to it.

But Hillary Clinton issued the kind of dodgy politically crafted non-committal  statement that tends to always leave her open to criticism that everything she does is politically motivated.

She released a statement essentially saying she " has real concerns about the reports".

 

First, what were her "concerns"? She didn't say. What does "concerns" mean? She didn't say. Secondly  they were not "reports". It was a statement released to the media by Immigration about a new Obama policy that is going to be implemented next month. 

Clinton calling it a "report" seems to  be a hedge to buy time to figure out what exactly Clinton is going to say given her new found public embrace of most of Obama's failed policies, which to many smacks of a backroom deal with Obama where  the DNC which is run by Obama as president will  do everything they can to tilt the playing field in her direction ( just as they did against her in 2008 ) which as David Gergen observed seems to already be the case when he said the DNC has clearly " gone in the tank for Clinton" , and Clinton in return will  publicly support and defend Obama policies. Although in this case it's obvious Clinton was caught by surprise and unprepared. So by calling it a "report" it's pretending that it's not official. Except that it is.

 

Obama's decision to deport these illegal immigrant families seems to put Clinton between a rock and a hard place to either support Obama's policy as she has all other Obama polices as per the agreement ( a huge political mistake)  or find a way to not support it without sounding like it so she can  support Obama and continue to trash Donald Trump for his statements on illegal immigrants at the same time. Sound confusing? Imagine what it's like for Clinton. 

 

The statement of "real concerns about reports" sounds like language trying to walk a political tightrope in being  " concerned " about it while not  looking like she is opposing it as part of the deal for the Obama controlled DNC pulling strings for her candidacy ( like debates scheduled at times when people are least likely to see them and the heavy handed one sided approach by the DNC over the Sanders data breach).

 

But as if trying to clarify it, another  statement put out soon after by a Clinton campaign spokesman made it worse.

The statement read: 

 

"Hillary Clinton has real concerns about these reports especially as families are coming together during this holiday season.  She believes it is critical (here comes the caveat) that everyone has a full and fair hearing and that our country provide refuge for those who need it". 

 

First, why is Clinton not saying that herself? Why is it being issued by someone else in her name? Wiggle room?  Secondly why continue to call it "reports" as opposed to a statement of policy when Clinton knows it's not "reports" but reality?  Third, what does the holiday season have to do with anything? If they deported the same families in August it would be okay?  

And that's exactly what could happen since the announced deportations aren't begining till next month.  And finally the major hedge as italicized earlier-- "she believes it is critical that everyone has a  full and fair hearing.." 

 Well that's nice since those families already had those hearings.All of them. And Clinton undoubtedly  knows that too.   It was part of the statement of policy put out on Thursday by the Immigration Service. So it's a red herring.  The families that are to be deported already  had their " full and fair" hearings in front an Immigrations judge and were found to have entered the country illegally and met other criteria that supposedly justified their deportation.  Clinton calling for "full and fair hearings" is calling for something that already happened. 

 

So what Clinton did in her statement was in reality support the Obama decision to deport  while trying to sound like she isn't.  It's both defending the Obama policy and illegal immigrant families at the same time by putting conditions on it that already exist. In contrast to Sanders and O'Malley who have both trashed it in no uncertain terms. While Clinton seems to still be  looking for terms. The  right ones.

The news media's juvenile minds over Trump's "schlong" and comments about Clinton.

Always leave it to the news media , especially CNN to miss the point and go for what's cheap meaningless and dishonest.

Donald Trump in responding  (or retaliating in his juvenile way) to Hillary Clinton's lie about Isis using Trump in recruitment videos ( irresponsible and untrue without a shred of evidence to back it up), said something about Clinton taking a bathroom break as being "disgusting", as one more  memorable moment that showed how asinine Trump can be. Maybe Trump doesn't have bathrooms in any of his homes or luxury apartments. Renters or condo buyers should check. But what the news media really focused on ,what really caught their attention, was Trump saying Clinton was" schlonged" by Obama in the 2008 primaries.  

And on CNN and elsewhere they've been snickering and giggling over "schlong" ever since.

First, the real point they missed and what really mattered  is that what Trump said  about Clinton was false.  But the media has been so wrapped up in the word "schlong" that part has been ignored. Instead they kept harping on Trump's comment as " vulgar". 

 CNN was so enamored with the word " schlong" all they focused on in their political segments was Trump's use of the word which naturally, in their grown up way,  they related to a penis. Which shows where their minds are. And their knowledge and accuracy.

When I was 14 and growing up in Brooklyn my friends and I used the word "schlonged" all the time.  And we never used  "schlonged" in any way that  had anything to do with a penis.  No one did. We had enough other words to use for that. And we did.  What "schlonged" meant to us and to everyone else in the neighborhood was getting beat really badly.  Destroyed. No contest. Slaughtered.  Schlonged. We usually used it in the context of sports, professionally or in games between ourselves.  It never had anything to do with a penis which CNN and Wolf Blitzer kept obsessing over (no wonder Blitzer went after Anthony Weiner) regardless of whatever eastern European origins the word might have. No one, at least in Brooklyn (which is all that matters when it comes to the word "schlong")  ever used the word to mean anything other than getting beat badly by your opponent.

Which is what Trump meant. Only it was a lie. As false as Clinton's lie about Isis using Trump in recruiting videos. Which makes Trump a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

But leave it to CNN and others in the news media, first to show the same level of accuracy in journalism and reporting they did in Ferguson and other news stories they get all wrong,  and second to show they have less maturity than my 14 year old friends as they snickered through a 24 hour news cycle at CNN and other places constantly referring to Trump's use of the word "schlonged" in what he said about Clinton and making the penis connection.

What they could have done had they not been so Freudianly obsessed, was  point out that the substance of what Trump said was a lie.  Because  the assertion that Clinton was badly beaten by Obama or even actually beaten at all by Obama in the primaries is false.

The reality is that in 2008 Clinton actually won the popular vote over Obama during the primaries, and a significant  majority of Democratic voters (when you include the votes gotten by lesser candidates ) didn't want Obama to be the Democratic  nominee at all.  Neither Obama nor Clinton finished the primaries with anywhere close to the two thirds majority of delegates needed for the nomination.

It is also a fact that  during the 2008 Democratic primaries Clinton didn't just beat Obama in 15 of the 17 largest states in the country, she landslided him in those states, schlonged him you might say,  by more than 10 points in each state and beat him in the 16th. The only large state  Obama won was his home state of Illinois. 

It shows that Trump can't get his information right and what he thinks is true, isn't.  And when it comes to judgement how can you be president and make good judgements about anything when you don't know what's true?

And that was the story.  How false and badly false Trumps statement was. Which isn't exactly the kind of characteristic and  good judgement most people want in a president.   Especially since we haven't had it for 16 years .But that wasn't the story. "Schlong" was. Which shows how knowledgeable reporters are. And how bad they are at what they do.

Maybe its because no one in the news media including CNN wants to touch the truth or point it out because it  was the news media who aided and abetted Obama during the Democratic primaries and the general election by looking the other way when Obama was constantly caught in a lie. Which was constantly. And the last thing they want to do now is bring that up.

The point is when Trump said "schlonged" he meant beaten badly and the real story is that was a lie.  Clinton won more votes than Obama did. And Trump's comment was as much  of a lie as Clinton's lie about Isis and Trump in recruitment videos.   (Can't anybody here tell the truth about anything?)

So the real point is that Trump showed again he doesn't know what he's talking about and gets his facts wrong,  not exactly what anyone wants in a president.

Trump said that his comment wasn't vulgar. His bathroom comments went beyond vulgar to disgusting. But his " schlonged" comment wasn't vulgar. It was false. 

But despite Trump's statement being false on its face,  CNN for one,  throughout the 24 hour news cycle ignored face value to go for penis value.  Which made CNN vulgar.  And might explain why CNN keeps getting schlonged in the ratings.

Poll: Sanders Beats Trump by Bigger Margin Than Clinton. News Media:Bernie Who?

A new Quinnipac poll, for whatever its worth ( and no one really knows) shows that in head to head match ups against Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders beats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton.

But even though the poll shows Sanders a more popular candidate nationwide against Trump than Clinton,  Sanders is a virtual non-entity  to the news media compared to Trump showing again just how professionally and morally bankrupt the overwhelming majority of those who currently work in journalism at all levels really are.

The Intercept ( the news organization started by Glenn Greenwald of Edward Snowden fame) ran a Nexis report on news media mentions and headlines over the last 30 days comparing Trump to Sanders. There were 20 hits for Sanders 690 for Trump.

Following Trumps statement about a temporary ban on Muslim immigration ( keeping in mind that Trump is still one of 12 Republican candidates and nothing he says has any force of actual policy) the Nexis comparison of Trump headlines to Sanders was 100-5.

Comparisons made using only  the New York Times and Washington Post revealed that Trump had 145 headlines and Sanders 22. In the Washington Post the headline mentions were 64 for Sanders, Trump 535. 

In addition to the Quinnipac poll, an analysis of a recent NBC/Washington Post poll made by The Intercept showed Sanders had more national support ( subtracting those identifying themselves as strictly GOP or Democratic voters) than Trump, 16%-11%

If anyone still has any doubt about what drives the national news media from their completely dishonest, slanted and destructive Ferguson coverage a year ago to national policy and presidential politics, none of which ever has anything to do with presenting truth or facts but pandering for ratings and profits,  the Intercept reported that Les  Moonves, the CEO of CBS at a recent CBS investor presentation on CBS' bottom line cheered " Go Donald. Keep getting out there !"

He wasn't  supporting Trump as a candidate just a gold mine.

Sanders landslides Clinton in 3 Democratic Straw Polls.

No doubt the headline is either going to come as a shock to many Democrats especially Clinton supporters or they arent going to believe it and write it off as something  invalid that can be just ignored.

Well, okay, if you want to.

But Democrats.com, a Democratic web site that's been around since 2003 as been conducting straw polls on Democratic candidates for president. It's not some fly by night political site and there is no ax to grind.

Unlike the polls that use a sample of 500 people, (Quinnipac) none of whom by the way can ever be verified as not being aardvarks much less actual voters, while clearly not scientific, the number of people casting votes in the Democrats.com straw poll are considerable. And the results no matter what you think of the validity of the polls, still come as a shock. To some. But not all. 

The national polls are just that --  national extrapolations based on small random samples from all over the country  with no way of knowing if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, if they've ever voted at all, will vote or will vote in a Democratic primary.

It can be argued the same is true for the straw poll at Democrats. com. But what no one can argue against are the raw numbers which speak for themselves. Which seem to reflect, if not political science, passion.

The most recent Quinnipac  national poll shows Clinton beating Sanders 60-35 based on a sample of 550 people nationwide. The Democrats. com straw poll results are just about opposite. CNN which everyone knows are the most unreliable and rigged polls with the lowest standards in polling also have Clinton with an almost 2-1 lead. 

The results of the Democrats. com straw poll conducted between 10/3-10/9:

From  155,111 votes cast:

Bernie Sanders, 50% Clinton 21%, 17% either Clinton or Sanders. The rest was divided between Biden, O'Malley et al.

The second poll conducted 10/14-10/19:

From 91,082 votes cast:

Sanders 49%  Clinton 32% and 14% saying either.

In the third straw poll conducted 11/6-11/12:

From 126,121 votes cast:

Sanders 46% Clinton 32% with either getting 17%.

Even if unscientific and the possibility of some ballot stuffing ( though ballot stuffing could be just as possible for Clinton as Sanders) the numbers are still unexpected. Though possibly predictable because many of Clinton's recent positions have seemed to have a new found loyalty to Obama's failed presidency and may be the result of the Clinton campaign making a serious political miscalculation.

The landslide numbers for Sanders over Clinton in the straw polls may have deep roots.

Clinton seems to have changed her views recently to be more in keeping with Obama and has been praising what most Democrats know is a failed presidency. It could be a calculated political decision thinking that praising Obama and not just defending but embracing his presidency is going to go over well with most mainstream Democratic voters. Its not.

 The Clinton camp seems to be totally oblivious to a lot of  palpable disgust most Democrats --  Democrats in congress and Democratic voters feel towards Obama. And for very good reasons.

Obama's sell out of healthcare reform to the insurance companies by agreeing to drop the public option which became known as Obamacare is something Clinton has been enthusiastically embracing. Democratic voters do not.  And it's singularly responsible for Democrats getting wiped out of the House in 2010 ( as I predicted it would months before the 2010 election if the public option was dropped) and again in the senate in 2014 which I also predicted. Obamacare has been a total failure in helping the people healthcare reform was supposed to help the most - the 35 -40 million uninsured, 97% of whom are still uninsured 2 years into Obamacare because they can't afford the insane premiums of even the cheapest policies.  Which is what happens when you let the insurance companies write the bill. Which Obama did. 

It's probably safe to assume the vast majority of the 35 million who are still uninsured and who will now face stiff financial penalties for not buying the junk forced on them by Obamacare are Democratic voters. 

Obamacare has also been a complete failure at the second thing healthcare reform was supposed to do - lower the obscene cost of healthcare and insurance for people who have it . Instead premiums and healthcare costs keep rising thanks to Obama's dropping of the public option. 

Sanders is campaigning on replacing Obamacare with a Medicare for all type program. 

On Wall Street,  8 figure a year bank executives who admitted to criminal fraud which caused the financial crisis were allowed by the Obama administration to buy their way out of prison by agreeing to record fines that didn't even require them to use their own money -- in other words Wall Street criminals -- real criminals not rhetorical criminals were allowed to get off scott free.  And that isnt going over well with Democratic voters either. That is in contrast to Sanders  constant attacks on Wall Street.

And then  there is Obama's terrible judgement with Isis and his failed foreign policies and now his grudging acknowledgement that its going to take U.S. ground forces (with other countries) to defeat Isis so is starting to deploy them in dribs and drabs. There was Clinton's own statement after the Paris attacks supporting Obama's now defunct Isis policy of not sending ground troops when she said "It's not our fight". Which didn't sound too good to begin with and is even worse after San Bernadino. And Clinton's staunch defense of Obama policy of never sending U.S. ground troops to destroy Isis has not only been undercut by Obama's decision to send commandos and special forces but almost 60% of Americans now support the use of U.S. ground troops to destroy Isis. 

Praising or supporting Obama's weak, tepid, disengaged  and failed foreign policy from the Ukraine to Syria and Isis  and the failing Iran deal doesn't figure to win many votes outside of Daily Kos. 

Yet Clinton has embraced all of it and almost incredulously said Obama doesn't get enough credit for the economy improving.

Clinton's embrace of Obama policies, if that's how she really feels is misguided and out of step with mainstream Democrats.  Her positions on Isis, Edward Snowden, Obamacare, the economy, and foreign policy all are embracing failed Obama policies  which doesn't seem to acknowledge them as failures and instead look politically calculated.

The term "Democratic strategist" since 2000 has been an oxymoron and if Clinton is taking bad political advice to embrace Obama and not run from him because she thinks she has to appeal to Obama supporters it will play right into Republican hands of trying to portray her as a third Obama term which, whether she realizes it or not, or likes it or not, nobody wants. Nobody. And that includes the majority of Democrats. 

Which may very well explain Sanders swamping her in the straw poll at Democrats.com.

CNN's pandering vanity promo for GOP presidential debate.

There's not much CNN does right these days. Actually for a lot of days. Like years.  Their lack of any journalistic standards or real objectivity,(see Ferguson)  their fear of offending any demographic group or political persuasion with the truth, their lack of putting up a firewall between themselves and those they cover especially politicians is there for all to see in microcasm in their cosmetic  vanity promo for their GOP presidential debate December 15 . 

The promo which consists of a pounding drum solo that's been used in dozens of commercials from local car dealers to Vegas hotels plays through a series of carefully lit beauty shots of the faces of each Republican candidate. Along with their names in case you forgot.

The progression of shots are of each candidate looking into the camera,  dramatically lit and designed to do one thing --  make them look good. Which doesn't say much for a news organization holding a debate that is supposed to ask tough revealing questions. It doesn't create  a lot of confidence that there is going to be too much that is new or any questions based on anything real. It's a promotional spot for a presidential debate designed to appeal to the vanity of both the candidates and the network, a contrived display by a news organization trying to flatter those they are supposed to cover which gives us insight into CNN's idea of journalism. 

A more honest way of doing it would have been to use candid shots of the same candidates in real settings or previous debates, or making speeches or shots that caught them off guard, something that actually revealed something about them, their character or political views even it didn't flatter them instead of pandering to their already out of control vanity. Which might have  promised a debate that would do the same thing. 

Instead we get a series of contrived pretty pictures (well they try and make them pretty)  of all the GOP candidates  shot expressly for the promo showing them staring  seriously and purposely or demurely into the camera with the hackneyed done to death drum solo on the soundtrack designed  to let you know that, hey kids this is important.

It promises soft ball questions or questions designed to ignite the kind of inflammatory nonsense CNN tries to pass off as journalism. And with Wolf Blitzer moderating, someone who is constantly shilling for CNN, (like promising new information just before a  commercial break to keep you watching then giving news thats 8 hours old on the other side of the break)   dont expect much. A lot will be about Trump and his Muslim comments and asking candidates to condemn them , will they support Trump if he is the nominee and other questions that will be of little use to actual human beings but which may inspire a dog fight.

The shallowness of the promo and its approach tells you a lot about  the shallowness of CNN as a news organization , the people who work there , their thinking and those who make decisions about what they think matters. And more importantly, what they think doesn't.  Which is why CNN continues to be  the Most Rusted Name in News.

Thoughts and Prayers, 5c

Everyone's heard it all before. Its comes out of the Insincere Politician and News Media Handbook of Cliches For Every Occassion under: Tragedy. "Our thoughts and prayers are with _______" It's  right above " our hearts go out to____" .

 

After Paris Obama said his thoughts and prayers were with the victims. So did every member of the news media as they interviewed survivors and family members. So did Hillary Clinton and every other politician.  As family or survivors were interviewed by CNN reporters they would invariably squeeze in "Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family".

 

After the shooting at the Colorado Planned Parenthood Clinic Obama, politicians and the news media all said their thoughts and prayers are with the victims.

 

And after the 14 were killed and 21 wounded in San Bernadino there were more thoughts and prayers offered from Obama and all of the Republican presidential candidates who would rather offer thoughts and prayers than offer legislation to cut down on the need for thoughts and prayers.

 

The entire Peanuts gang offering their thoughts and prayers would have more sincerity and carry more weight than all the politicians and members of the news media who patronizingly offer it combined.

 

The truth is -- and it is the truth --no one,  not one politician or any TV journalist who offered thoughts and prayers to the victims of another mass shooting ever  missed a meal over it despite their public hand wringing. And while they will  publicly wring their hands no one will lift  finger to actually do something about it.  

Hillary Clinton offered a tweet ( a tweet?) that said

" I refuse to accept this as normal".   Okay, thanks. This seems to follow her new found loyalty and support of  failed Obama policies who recently enlightened us with more of his electric deeply moving, insightful and meaningful  pronouncements  after the Colorado clinic shooting when he said, 

" This is not normal".

 

Everyone knows what offering thoughts and prayers are.  Offering thoughts and prayers is essentially an insincere political cliche designed to show that the offerer is a good person who cares. Which they do.   A little.  For a minute. What it really is at its most basic, is sympathy.

 

There is something better than sympathy.  Its called empathy. Empathy is before the fact, sympathy comes after the fact.  If you have empathy for human beings  if you can relate to others and their lives and there is enough of it among politicians  there wouldn't be a need for so much sympathy.

 

Sympathy  for the victims is the stock and trade of politicians and the news media. It's all they have to offer. Because it's the easiest  thing to do. It's a greeting card that disappears when the cameras do.  

The entire Peanuts gang offering their thoughts and prayers would also have more impact than all the politicians and news media types combined. At least you'd feel they understood. 

What's really needed is to actually do something that might help prevent one or two or three of these events.  Maybe like shaming Republicans who killed a bill that would ban people on a terrorist no fly list from buying guns.  Or a bill to limit magazines to 15 rounds. But as the NRA knows, you don't need an AR-15 to kill a bill. You just need enough Republicans. 

 

Democrats, weak and meek and tepid as usual

(there is a political axiom that a party takes on the characteristics of it's leader) didn't know how to turn that to their political advantage. The news media, weak and meek as usual who get tough when they think its safe and it won't offend any large demographic group,  plays the "they said, they said" game, bringing on both sides of the debate and giving equal weight to both because their idea of being fair has nothing to do with the truth but equal opportunity lying. 

Opponents of any legislation say it wouldn't have prevented the tragedy . How they know this isn't clear. Since the San Bernadino killers were on a time table a law limiting magazines to 15 rounds instead of 30 might've cut the casualties in half.  Or a law requiring extra registration for anyone wanting 30 round clips so they can be vetted.

By the way what didn't prevent the tragedy was the bulk meta data collection of all Americans phone records which ended Nov.29th thanks to Edward Snowden .  The phone records of the terrorist shooters for the last five years  along with Internet activity was available and stored somewhere along with everyone else's thanks to the abuses allowed by Obama in the name of national security and was worthless in preventing what happened.

Saying that new laws wouldn't have prevented the attack is worthless also. It's a good excuse for doing nothing.

Which means all the thoughts and prayers of all the politicians and news media in the country combined isn't worth 5c.  It's not even worth two.

Colorado Clinic Killer No Different Than Paris Attackers.

When the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter opened fire he was doing nothing different than what the Paris attackers  did and was motivated by exactly the same things.

Those shot during the Paris attacks were murdered by people  trying to impose their religious ideology on others about what people can and cannot do, should and should not do and punish those who refuse. The Planned Parenthood shooter was doing the same.

The lunatic who shot 5 police officers killing one, then killing two civilians and wounding four others at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Colorado was no different than the Paris attackers. He was acting on religious right wing conservative views and was largely motivated by the doctored fraudulent video put together by the bogus Center for Medical Progress.  Isis uses videos too for their  own purposes and to promote their ideology and the conservative right wing Center For Medical Progress did the same. Except their video was factually fraudulent. But judging from the reaction of Republicans in and out of congress including Republican presidential candidates  like Carly Fiorina, it was an effective recruiting tool. It even motivated a lone wolf to act.

The bogus video was promoted tirelessly by Carly Fiorina which she referenced numerous times during GOP presidential debates to validate her views even though the video was fraudulent. Which makes Fiorina herself fraudulent as a candidate along with other Republicans who validated the video.

Fiorina  was already feeling on the defensive  when during an appearance on Fox News, she accused anyone who tried to create a link between the killings and her views or previous statements as politicizing the shooting. Which ignores the fact that it was Fiorina herself referencing the videos during a Republican presidential debate who actually politicized it.

Which also didn't stop her from saying that anyone trying to create a link between the shooter and "those who oppose body parts" is using "typical left wing tactics."

So Fiorina and other Republicans  who all validated a dishonest and fraudulent video and didn't care that it was fraudulent because it furthered their political aspirations and ideology and so share responsibility for inspiring the lunatic shooter who, reports said, mentioned the content of the fraudulent videos and "body parts" as his motive for the killings, think they can use it in the presidential debate to pander to conservative voters and its not politicizing it, but when its pointed out that the shooter used it as motivation  it's "typical left wing tactics". Which is typical right wing tactics.  Or the pot calling the kettle black. Which of course exposes Fiorina herself as a fraud, a hypocrite and too dishonest for public office. Which is saying something.

Proof the videos were fraudulent went far beyond Planned Parenthood stating from the beginning they were fraudulent, dishonestly edited and made to look as if something was happening that wasn't. Which Fiorina, without any proof to the contrary, convieniently ignored.

But during a law suit filed  by Planned Parenthood against Center For Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood attorneys as part of discovery demanded all the original raw materials used by the Center For Medical Progress in putting together the video. The Center For American Progress filed a motion pleading 5th amendment protection against self incrimination to keep them from having to turn over the material. That's all you, Carly Forina, Donald Trump or any of the Republicans trying to defund Planned Parenthood  have to know about the validity and honesty of the videos. And the people that produced and disseminated them.

The Colorado shooter tried to punish those who didn't share his and right wing conservative beliefs as surely as the attackers did the same in Paris. In Paris the venues were restaurants, a concert hall, and a soccer stadium. For the lunatic in Colorado it was a clinic.

There is another  larger  lesson to be learned for Republicans and their presidential candidates. Its clear the Colorado shooter was acting on right wing conservative Christian beliefs no matter how twisted his actions. Based on Trump's ideas as a result of the Paris attacks should we now have the names of conservative  Christians in a data base? Do we need to vette them to make sure none are right wing crazy violent lunatics? The Paris attackers were anti- choice also. Only they were intent on stopping a different set of choices.

Is Carly Fiorina now an Isis like ideological  threat and terrorist inspiration since she more than anyone gave validity to the concocted manipulated dishonest video and false accusations against Planned Parenthood  that inspired the shooter?

The Planned Parenthood shootings should destroy the idea that over a billion Muslims are any threat to anyone and need to be put in a data base because of the actions of some radical lunatics who president Obama along with other world leaders up to this point seems to be either too befuddled or too weak to destroy.

But to hold Muslims accountable for what Isis does is as ridiculous as holding conservative Christians responsible for the murders at the Planned Parenthood clinic. Though its clear that many Republicans like Fiorina use language and make moral accusations against those who don't believe what they do which the killer then used to justify what he did.  Just like terrorists always do.

Obama, Like George W. Bush, Tries to Blame Bad Intelligence For His Bad Decisions.

George W. Bush tried to blame the intelligence community for a lack of actionable intelligence for the 911 attacks. Except the intelligence community gave him so much specific actionable and urgent intelligence, specifically that the U.S. was going to be hit with an imminent "spectacular" terrorist attack  and the method of attack would involve  the hijacking of U.S. airliners (all without the meta data program) that there isn't a cab driver in New York city who couldn't have prevented 911 with the information that Bush dismissed. Bush did the same when no WMD was found in Iraq, the rationale Bush used  for invading, and then tried to blame "faulty" intelligence as the culprit.

Now Obama is trying to do the same and use the same excuse, citing the possibility that some intelligence reports on Isis may have been altered to present a more optimistic picture about his strategy than was the case which in turn affected his decision making.

This is preposterous and shows the depths Obama is willing to go to escape responsibility for bad decisions. And it's hardly the first time as anyone who is honest and has paid attention to what Obama says well knows.

While Obama says he is looking into the possibility that intelligence reports were intentionally altered to make it look like his strategy was working, just about everyone from outside experts and analysts, members of congress and vacuum cleaner salesmen knew it wasn't. And they didn't need intelligent briefings to figure it out.

This comes from the politician who has a life long well documented history of lying, misrepresenting the truth and fabricating a false reality out of whole cloth for political reasons, more Nixonian in his own way than Nixon but without the 5 o'clock shadow.

Everyone has known Obama's strategy or non-strategy in Syria and against Isis has never been successful. Former Secretary  of Defense and former CIA Director Leon Panetta  spent 10 minutes on CNN talking about Obama's failures with Isis.    Its been criticized as weak, tepid, timid, and half baked. Because it is. So for Obama to blame potentially doctored  intelligence on his decision making is pulling a Bush/Cheney.

Three years ago 3 Secretaries of Defense,a former Secretary of State and CIA Director all advised Obama to arm the moderate Syrian rebels against Isis. He refused and referred to Isis as " the junior varsity". There was no " overly optimistic doctored intelligence" at the time affecting Obama's decision.

A year ago Obama himself admitted in a slip that he didn't have a strategy. That wasn't the result of overly optimistic intelligence estimates either.

And sweetening intelligence estimates for political purposes can cut both ways as intelligence experts have pointed out. It could just as easily come from the White House to let people know what the president wants to hear as being motivated for unknown reasons by an analyst. Either way as a number of intelligence analysts and Panetta pointed out , there has never been any intelligence estimate that justified Obama calling Isis the " junior varsity" 3 years ago . Or that Isis was " contained".

Michael Flynn the former Director of Defense Intelligence all but called Obama a liar in the documentary Blindsided when Obama tried to claim after the rise of Isis that he didn't have adequate intelligence. Flynn pointed out that Obama  was given specific intelligence assessments before he made his infamous and inane " junior varsity " comment that Isis was a  serious  and growing threat that needed to be dealt with. Flynn said," Obama's comment disappointed me".

The Friday morning before the Paris attacks, but after Isis had carried out a bombing in Beirut which killed more than 40 and then downed a Russian airliner killing 224 with a bomb, Obama made the statement that Isis had been contained.

Then came Friday night in Paris.

And Obama's weak, tepid and much criticized comments after the Paris attack . And no his excuse making and lying about doctored intelligence. 

There could be no conceivable reason for anyone to doctor intelligence estimates of success against Isis and it's unlikely anyone did.

The military has been known to do it in the past but their motives was always to use it to lobby for more resources. Because the military always wants more resources. And in those cases tried to use claimed successes as a way to get them.

But against Isis its been the opposite. The military never made optimistic claims of success.  In fact it was the opposite.

It was only a year ago, in Sept and November of 2014 that then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey testified in front of the House Armed Services Committee that the air strikes weren't going to destroy Isis and that the only way to actually destroy Isis was to deploy ground forces and he was prepared to recommend the use of ground troops to Obama.

Dempsey even had Pentagon planners develop a plan of attack and what it would take to do it.  Dempsey testified that it would take 80,000 troops on the ground to destroy the 30,000 Isis fighters.

Dempsey didn't make that assessment because he had faulty doctored intelligence that Obama's strategy was succeeding.

Everyone  has known for three years that what Obama was doing wasn't working.   If he was getting doctored intelligence that claimed success he would've been the only in America who believed them.

 Now Democrats like Dianne Feinstein are revolting and admitting Obama's strategy isn't working, is ineffective and a new approach is needed. Which may be  why Obama is trying to lay the groundwork for  a change in course and do it in Obama fashion by denying he ever made a bad decision or was wrong  by blaming it on  " doctored intelligence".

But, like with George W. Bush, the only intelligence failures in the Obama administration occurred at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.  In the Oval Office. And with it and Obama's inadequacy, the same kind of lies. 

After Paris, Obama, Like Nixon and Bush, Lies About His Failures and His Critics.

At the Antalya Summit in Turkey, in the wake of the Paris attacks and the 500 causalities and loss of life, Obama hit new lows in defending his policies by brazenly lying again in answer to questions related to the critics of his failed Isis policies including his refusal to send ground troops to fight Isis which everyone agrees is the only way Isis can be destroyed.

First, that Obama's policies have failed and failed from the very beginning is not in dispute by anyone, Democrat or Republican or the U.S. military. The only one who doesn't claim its failed is Obama. Which shows both how deeply in denial he is and how his ego always comes first.

Then he invoked what many on the Tea Party Left invoke when it comes to using the military for the purpose for which it exists -- protecting American citizens, their safety, their well being and way of life from a foreign enemy. They yell "Vietnam!" and "Iraq!", the constant neurotic paralysis, stupidity and ignorance every time the use of military force comes up seemingly not able to tell the difference between two wars the country was lied into and the legitimate use of military force to destroy an enemy intent on inflicting as many casualties on us and the Europeans as they can.

In defense of his not using ground troops to destroy Isis, Obama, along with invoking Vietnam and Iraq as mistakes  said at the press conference that no one ever presented a plan of what they would do militarily. Not true. But something he was clearly trying to use as an excuse for not using ground troops.

Obama said "not a single one of my top military advisors ever advocated for ground troops to fight Isis. Not one." As you will see also not true.

He then went on to contemptuously suggest that anyone who thinks we should send ground troops doesn't know what they are talking about because they couldn't have the intelligence he does to make these decisions. In other words, to paraphrase past Obama wisdom, he claims that those who criticize his policy are the junior varsity.

Obama's problem is he ignored Woody Allen's line that when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything.

Obama always hopes that journalists and others are either too weak or intimidated to call him out when he clearly lies or if one wants to soften it, his intentional self serving misrepresentations.  Obama claimed  that "not one of my top military advisors ever advocated ground troops to fight Isis. Not one".  Not one. How about maybe General Martin Dempsey, Obama's former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Do a Google search on "General Dempsey ground troops Isis". This is the first thing that what will come up but there is more.

Nov.13, 2014 -" General Dempsey open to ground troops in Iraq to retake territories  lost to Isis in Iraq. (the italics because of Obama's dismissal of retaking territory lost to Isil as important when he said at the press conference "sure we can retake territories and hold it but so what"?) Dempsey at the time said 80,000 troops would be necessary to be effective."

Dempsey didn't pull that figure out of a hat. Obviously military planners at the Pentagon at Dempsey's direction took months to devise a plan of attack using ground troops to destroy Isis and had concluded the number that would be needed was 80,000 troops "to be effective".  So much for Obama's claim that not one military commander ever recommended or considered ground forces to defeat Isis.

Obama also lied when he said in the press conference that he meets with his military leaders all the time and that they said ground forces "would be a mistake". That the Pentagon did a study and worked out a plan at the behest of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proves Obama was lying.  But there is more.

General Dempsy actually testified before congress that he believed ground forces would be needed to destroy Isis.

NBC News - Nov. 13, 2014

 Dempsey testifies in front of  congressional committee that he is considering recommending sending ground troops to Iraq to fight against Isis,

THE HILL -- Sept 17,2014.

Top Army General:  ground troops needed to fight Isis militants.

THE NEW YORK TIMES -  Sept 16, 2014

U.S. General Open  to Ground Forces in Fight Against Isis in Iraq

CNN -  Nov 13, 2014

Dempsey Leaves Door Open for U.S. Ground Troops.

THE GUARDIAN - Nov 13, 2014

U.S. military considers  sending combat troops to battle Isis forces.

FOX NEWS - Nov. 13, 2014

Dempsey: U.S. troops could fight along side Iraqi forces in war against Isis, Dempsey told the House Armed Services Committee. "We are at war against Isil" Dempsey said.

It's probably no coincidence that Dempsey, who held those views in spite of Obama's policies, ultimately quit as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs joining three previous Secretaries of Defense who quit when Obama rebuffed their advice to destroy Isis in the beginning by arming the moderate Syrian rebels 3 years ago. Which led to Obama's now famous comment and shining example of his judgement by dismissing Isis as "the junior varsity".

It's one thing to disagree and attempt to present a cogent argument that supports your position . Its another thing to repeatedly and blatantly lie about your policies that has cost lives and created the Syrian refugee crisis because you don't have a cogent argument to make and you have no facts to back you up.  

It was only the Friday morning before the Paris attacks but after Isis attacked in Beruit then bombed a Russian airliner killing 224 that Obama said Isis had been contained.

It is probable that the biggest reason Obama won't send ground forces now to destroy Isis is because he knows he could have destroyed them three years ago in their infancy by arming the moderate Syrian rebels. Which means sending U.S. ground forces now would mean every U.S. casualty would be paying for his mistake. And he doesn't want to deal with that.

The irony is America has paid a steep price because leaders have lied to them about matters of war and peace.  General Westmoreland lied to Lyndon Johnson repeatedly about Vietnam. Nixon lied about Vietnam. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with help from the New York Times, lied the country into a dishonest and disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq. And now Obama is lying to the country and the world about using military power to destroy Isis but for the opposite reason --  so he doesn't have to make a decision to fight a war it's obvious we have to win. Which, until we do, will continue to cost innocent lives. The only question is whose and how many. 

When political neurotics on the far Left like those at MoveOn and ThinkProgress cry " Vietnam" and " Iraq"  to defend their argument, they miss the point that the real problem from the beginning was the lie. The consequences of the lie and the price we paid came later.

When Obama says none of his military commanders ever recommended or considered ground troops to destroy Isis, when he says that every one of his military commanders said using ground troops would be a mistake, he is lying. Period. The decision to not use ground troops has been solely his in spite of recommendations by his military commanders. It has been Obama's lack of resolve or commitment to destroy Isis that has led to his typical half way ineffective measures. And, like Bush did after Iraq, Obama tries to put the onus on others for his decisions instead of admitting they are his and his alone.

Whether it's Obama's well justified lack of confidence in his own decision making where doing nothing is safer than doing something that might not work, an approach that has defined his entire 18 years in elected office, he has placed the rationale for his own decision making dishonestly on to his military when its been his own refusal to act that is the real issue as we and the world saw with his reneging on his pledge to use a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons.

It's really about only one thing -- is there a real commitment to destroy the 30,000 Isis fighters in Iraq and Syria or not? 

Dempsey said it would take 80,000 U.S. troops. It doesnt have to after the Paris attacks.  If  the United States actually had a leader there could be a coalition of allies contributing 100,000 or more ground troops, 25,000 each from the U.S., France, Russia,the UK with an additional force from Canada who has indicated they are willing to join the fight, and just go in to take them out. Jim Acosta at CNN asked why we don't do exactly that at the press conference in Turkey which led to Obama's misrepresentations of the truth in trying to defend his own failures and failings.

For now, it doesn't matter whether you think ground troops are necessary or you don't. It doesn't matter whether you think you know what you're talking about and know the right thing to do or you don't. What matters is the reality that every time America has been lied to regarding the use of military force one way or the other it was a  big mistake and we paid a big price. And no matter what side of the argument you are on, there is no doubt  Obama has lied and continues to lie about relevant and important facts.

Nixon and Bush lied about why they were sending troops to fight a war. Obama is lying about why he's not.

There are hypocrites like those on the Tea Party Left like MoveOn and ThinkProgress  who railed over past Nixon, Bush and Cheney lies about war but have no problem with Obama's lies because he lies about something they approve of which is to do nothing. 

But in the end it's really about one unmistakable conclusion. Obama can't be trusted. Not trusted to tell the truth . And not trusted to make the right decision based of the facts. Which is why it's going to take Democrats in congress to take control and force his hand. Because no matter what the lie is now or the lies were then, always doing the opposite of the lie is going to be the right thing to do.

Obama, Cameron and Hollande Share Blame for Paris Attacks.

It started three years ago with Obama dismissing Isis as "the junior varsity" and rebuffing the recommendations of three Secretaries of Defense who all finally quit, a CIA Director and his then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to arm the moderate Syrian rebels against Isis when they were in their infancy. Others saw the threat coming. Obama didn't. 

Obama's decision making and judgement was made to look even worse and more foolish when Obama claimed the Friday morning of the Paris attacks  after a Kurd victory in Iraq  that "Isis has been contained". 

Michael Weiss an anti-terrorism expert and expert on Isis who has interviewed former Isis members was just as incredulous at Obama's statement of  "containment" especially after Isis had just carried out coordinated bombings in Beruit and had blown up a Russian passenger jet. 

It was unfortunately typical of a president who in 11 years of elective office before running for president, accomplished absolutely nothing other than to win his next election.That isn't hyperbole, that is a fact. In 11 years of elective office before running for president Barrack Obama did not introduce one piece of legislation did offer, sponsor or co-sponsor one bill and voted "present" more than 100 times so he didnt have to vote for or against anything. That character trait which has been apparent throughout his presidency is especially worrisome now in dealing with terrorism.

 Doing nothing has been Obama's personal road to political success, thinking any problem only needs is a speech or a comment. He' "condemns in the strongest possible terms". And he is always ready with "thoughts and prayers". And little else.

And nothing has changed as his lackluster comments after the Paris attack shows. But it has been disastrous for the United States especially Democratic voters because of his failures in domestic policy and disastrous for the world in his foreign policy, the results of which get worse every day.

If the world was looking for America to lead, for the last 14 years, from the inept and unqualified George W. Bush to the inept and weak and distinctly unaccomplished and aversion to act meaningfully Barrack Obama, America has been the wrong place to look.

The Paris  terrorist attacks carried out by Isis, the worst terrorist attack Europe has ever seen is an outgrowth of Obama's lack of resolve and that of Cameron and Hollande and their inability or failure to define the problem that Isis has really posed.  Along with their political fear and aversion to what is commonly referred to as putting boots on the ground by assembling the type of united allied coalition that won both WWII and the first Gulf War when what has been needed is committing whatever it takes militarily to destroy Isis completely.

Now finally, after the attacks in Paris, Hollande has called the Isis attacks what they should have been called a long time ago -- an act of war.

Isis has declared war on civilization and the response of civilization's leaders like many in congress and  those who make up the Tea Party Left in the United States like MoveOn, ThinkProgress and Daily Kos,  have answered the call  by recoiling at any suggestion of concerted military act to destroy Isis with , "  but that would be war."

It was MoveOn and other Tea Party Left groups who lobbied against Obama making good on his threat to punish Assad with a missile strike if Assad used chemical weapons against civilians by calling it "war" (as if any of them actually knew what war really was) and that the U.S. had to avoid "war" in the Middle East at all cost.

The cost was apparent in Paris. The cost was also apparent by the exodus of refugees from Syria to escape  Isis and Assad's barrel bombs which would have been significantly degraded by Obama's promised but never delivered missile strike.

What to do about Isis was clear from the beginning and it was simple. The only evaluation that had to be made was this: ask military and civilian intelligence a single question - if Isis is left to its own devices, if we did nothing (not Obama's ineffective half baked air strikes)  does Isis pose a real and serious threat to Americans here at home. If the answer is "no" then there should be no U.S. combat involvement. If the answer is "yes" then whatever ground troops and military force is necessary to destroy Isis where they are in Syria and Iraq is what was needed then, and what is needed now.

In spite of the usual knee jerk responses from those who react to every need for military force by yelling  "Viet Nam" and "Iraq" as if those mistakes and the weakness and lousy judgement of those who were responsible somehow justifies doing nothing in the face of a real global threat, if Isis had been recognized as the global threat it was, and effective military action was taken from the beginning, what happened in Paris could have been avoided.

There is no one, not a single military commander or intelligence expert, not one, who hasn't said  that destroying Isis is going to take ground forces and cannot be done without deploying ground forces.    Up till now, with Obama, Cameron and  Hollande refusing to commit ground forces to destroy Isis, the world has decided to let the Kurds and  moderate Syrian rebels do their fighting for them. It hasn't been enough.

Since the estimate is that in both Syria and Iraq there are about 30,000 Isis fighters, and we know where they are  conventional military wisdom and strategy and what was called the Powell Doctrine,  says that there should be a coalition, led by America of 100,000 combat troops, perhaps 25,000 each committed by the U.S., the UK, France and Russia,  and whatever air power is necessary to support them to do one thing -- destroy Isis and their ability to make war and carry out acts of terrorism as surely as the Allies destroyed the Nazis, Japan, and Saddam Hussein.

The immediate belief is the attacks in Paris were carried out by those who went to Syria,were trained, and then came back to France. It's something every country in Europe and the U. S. is concerned about though there have been far more in Europe than in the U.S.  And now there is talk of how better to defend against those coming back to commit acts of terror. But the best way to insure against French or British or American citizens traveling back to their home countries to commit acts of terrorism, is to make sure there isnt anyone left to come back. And that means taking the fight to Isis wherever they are in Iraq and Syria.

We keep hearing from political leaders whether its Obama or Kerry or Cameron or other world leaders that no matter what the danger or threat it represents, "there is no military solution" to the problem. It doesn't matter what the problem is, there is no military solution.

That same philosophy was used by Neville Chamberlin in the peace deal he made with Hitler which he called "peace in our time", right before Hitler invaded Poland.  It's the same thinking that went into supporting the nuclear deal with Iran which is already unraveling. That deal avoided the certainty of what MoveOn, ThinkProgress and Daily Kos said would be war, within days if the U. S. rejected Iranian demands on the nuclear deal.

Obama's statement on the attacks in Paris as usual carried all the weight and gravitas of a sack of feathers.  Obama calling the attacks " outrageous" and " heart breaking" is the usual Obama approach of stating the obvious with no solutions, no pledge of action, and doing what he has always done throughout his political career better than any politician whoever lived --  doing nothing and thinking empty words are enough.

"We stand prepared to provide whatever assistance the French need to respond." Then more from the politicians book of cliches  about "standing shoulder to shoulder with France." (except when world leaders met in Paris to literally stand shoulder to shoulder in a march of defiance and to show solidarity after the Charlie Hedbo murders,  Obama's shoulders were noticeably missing)  then Obama went on to say, " those who think they can terrorize the people of France are wrong".

What Obama added was telling when it comes to his approach to dealing with a difficult problem. Denial.  Obama called the Paris attacks, " an outrageous attempt (italics mine)  to terrorize innocent civilians".  It was, as everyone saw,  no attempt. It succeeded in killing and terrorizing innocent civilians. Had it been stopped or thwarted Obama could have called it an "attempt". But it was no attempt. It was carried out.

The only attempt was the attempt by Obama to deny reality and try to  minimize what actually happened by calling it an "attempt" so he doesn't have to actually act and do something. What happened in Paris was no attempt at terrorizing innocent civilians.  This was an act that did in fact murder 128 innocent civilians and wound  more than 300, many severely.

Naturally the gratuitous Wolf Blitzer who puts finding favor with everyone first and foremost,  characterized Obama's statement as " the president mincing no words" when all Obama did was mince words.

More Blitzer: " its, its,  its a definite situation there" reminding us again how painful it is to have the current crop of incompetent journalists, especially the news anchors at CNN, every one of whom was sent to Paris to do what CNN always does, milk a tragedy for all it's worth, bringing us the news in a major crisis. Like having to endure the question by Poppy Harlow to the friend of a girl who was shot in thr concert hall in the leg and arm:  "Does she feel lucky that she survived"?

Reaction to the attacks on TV news has been predictable,  with commentators, analysts and experts saying we have to "beef up security" and increase our intelligence. Security and intelligence are fine and neccessary but they are purely and solely defensive. What needs to be added is going on the offensive, and that means committing whatever military resources it takes to destroy Isis, something Obama didn't have the stomach to do when he promised to "contain them" then "degrade them",  then "defeat them" using  every "D"  word in the English language except  the word "destroy"until he was virtually forced into saying " okay, destroy".

Hillary Clinton's response was unfortunately no better.  She talked about "standing with France", which also comes out of the Politicians Book of Cliches, "in the struggle against Isis". First, if words matter, the use of the word "struggle" had to make Isis smile, since a "struggle" means you are not succeeding, you're on the defensive and are having a hard time. Certainly not winning and not sure what to do next.   Second, presidential candidates craft their words carefully and Clinton's use of the words "struggle against Isis" was meant to carefully avoid using the word "war", when war is what it is.

Clinton could not have been more wrong at the Democratic debate when she said the fight against Isis " was not our  fight". She sounded like the right wing isolationists before Pearl Harbor who said exactly the same thing about Hitler and the war in Europe.

The attacks have awakened Hollande who called the Paris attacks "an act of war" and its clear he is not going to wait around to see who agrees with him. He sounded like someone who is going to commit France militarily to destroying Isis. Whether the U.S. or the UK or Russia will join remains to be seen. For Obama its going to be first and foremost a political calculation designed to avoid criticism or opposition which is always the case with Obama.  But military commitment is the only way to destroy Isis.

The last time that point was made here some time ago  chastising Obama for calling Isis the "junior varsity" and not being more aggressive against Isis in Syria and Iraq militarily, a typically ignorant Tea Party Left "progressive"  left a comment that opposed U.S. involvement and  said "send your kid", which was perhaps an unintended insult to the American parents who actually have their  "kids" in Iraq carrying out air strikes against Isis, making it sound like what they were doing wasn't worth the time. Now with the attacks in Paris there are French parents and family members of 128 murdered victims who, unlike the commentor, wish they had a kid to send. 

Hollande sounds like this time he will. And whether Obama and Cameron and Putin for that matter, join the fight or whether they are simply willing to hold the coats of the French and "stand with them"  remains to be seen.  Saturday morning John Kerry offered "indignation and sadness" over the attacks, neither of which will accomplish a thing.

MoveOn's response to the massacre was both predictably and typically  pathetic and useless.  In their mass emailing they called for "A Vigil For Peace". Their email stated  " there is no 'right way' to react to the (Paris) attack (no?) but that a good place to start is with compassion". They didn't say "compassion" for who. Maybe they didn't know.  But yes, nothing like compassion to stop the Isis threat. It's what makes these Tea Party Left progressive groups as worthless and ignorant as their climate change denier counterparts on the Tea Party Right. 

Bernard-Henri Levy, the French author and philosopher said it best after the attacks: No boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq will mean more blood on the ground in Paris, London and New York. And he added,  that it is something Obama is going to have to understand.  

It's something French president Hollande seems to have already learned. 

Who Needs Trump On SNL ? The Immigration Problem Solved By Our Leaders of Tomorrow.

No, these are not the editors and writers at MoveOn, ThinkProgress and Daily Kos. But what the video proves is that Tea  Party Left so called  "progressives" (as opposed to reality driven solution oriented liberals)  have bigger problems than Donald Trump.  It also proves that Republicans cutting funds for public education doesn't necessarily mean more Republican voters.

Former Clinton Envoy in Syria Destroys Obama on Syrian Policy.

Frederic Hof was a State Department advisor to Hillary Clinton on political affairs in Syria and was Deputy Special Envoy to George Mitchell for Middle East affairs.  In a long overdue stinging rebuke of Obama and his policies in Syria,  and from someone within the Obama administration, Hof  pulls no punches about Obama's personal failures  in Syria and not just of policy but character.

 

In an article on Politico.com Hof gives a long overdue and honest assault on Obama and his Syrian policy,  this from someone part of a Democratic administration not Republicans, who saw everything he tried to work for in Syria unravel between Isis, the group Obama ignored as " the junior varsity",  the resulting  refugee crisis and Putin doing for his interests what Obama wouldn't do for U.S. interests.

 

In a harsh but accurate indictment of Obama, Hof states that back in 2012 when the dimensions of the catastrophe in Syria were becoming clear, Obama  had "little appetite for protecting civilians".  This almost dissassociative response from Obama, some might even call it callous but certainly indifferent, might explain Obama's easy reneging on his pledge and threat to punish Assad with a missile strike if he used chemical weapons. 

After Assad essentially put his thumb in Obama's eye and went ahead and used chemical weapons anyway killing 300 children and almost 1000 adult civilians with sarin gas, Obama, intead of delivering on the promised strike, backed down as soon as there seemed to be some opposition to his missile strike from some in congress , the Tea Party Left like MoveOn (who called it "war")   and pressure from Putin. Instead Obama opted to put his integrity to a vote. His integrity lost. Again. 

 

Hof also states that the Obama administration was actually "shocked" by Russian intervention in Syria, taken completely by surprise which Hof says should have been no surprise and that Obama had been essentially bamboozled by Putin  (the same complaint made about his capitulating and now fast unraveling nuclear deal with Iran) and that Obama didn't see what many did -- that Putin was intent on keeping Assad in power.

  

Remember it was Putin of all people who pressured Obama not to go ahead with the missile strike against Assad which led to Obama publicly deciding to put the missile strike to a vote in congress  to save face  -- a vote he knew he'd lose but would give him the cover he needed to back down. 

 

True to Obama's history of being only talk Hof as an insider revealed that the main concern at the White House as Syria began to descend into hell was, as  Hof  defines it, "a communications problem" for the White House. Their main concern wasn't what was happening in Syria or to the 200,000 who were dying, it was getting Obama "on the right side of history in terms of his public pronouncements".

 

Which explains why for 3 years all Obama would do is say "Assad must go" while at the 

same time doing absolutely nothing to help bring that about. 

 

In Hof's words, " What the United States would do never enjoyed the same policy priority as

to what the United States would say".  Which has always been the case with Obama on any issue. 

 

What makes it even worse for Obama in light of the weak nuclear deal with Iran is that, as  Hof points out, Iran is "fully complicit in Assad's war crimes and crimes against humanity", along with  partnering with Putin who is propping  up Assad with air strikes. This is the Iran who Tea Party Left groups like MoveOn, Democracy For America and ThinkProgress  said would soften its stance  as a result of the nuclear deal and who at the time accused those who wanted a tougher nuclear  deal with Iran as being war mongers.

 

Hof says that Iran and Russia could stop what he called  "the gratuitous mass murder" of

civilians but opt not to do so.

 

Hof also says that the United States could stop it without invading, without occupying and without ground forces in Syria and " without stretching the parameters of military science". But  according to Hof who is in a position to know, Obama "has adamantly refused to do so". Making him complicit in the mass civilian casualties in Syria and the refugee crisis it created. Also complicit are Tea Party Left groups like MoveOn who are now wringing their hands over the Syrian refugee crisis but who vocally opposed Obama making good on his threat of a missile strike against Assad which would have substantially degraded Assad's air power and ability to drop barrel bombs on civilian populations, hospitals and schools. 

 

Hof  believes that " the United States should neither seek nor shy away from a military confrontation with Russia in Syria." He correctly point out that if the United States -- i.e. Obama stood up to Putin and refused to allow Russian jets to have their way, Putin would be reluctant to allow Russian fighter jets to escort Assad's fighters on their missions of mass death. Instead Putin told Obama to get out of the way, to get U.S. aircraft out of Syrian skies and Obama did what he was told while muttering things like being "deeply concerned".

 

Hof says that if Putin seeks a military confrontation with the United States in Syria betting that Obama would back down, the U.S. needs to stand up to Putin otherwise Putin will not stop in Syria but keep going until " he hits steel".

 

Hof concludes by saying that in August of 2011, falsely believing Obama was more than just words, he testified before a congressional committee that the Assad regime was " a dead man walking" . He believed that when Obama delivered his ultimatum to Assad about being punished with a  missile strike if he used chemical weapons ,that if Assad did cross Obama's "red line"  he would be dealt " a debilitating body blow" which would have crippled Assad's ability to drop barrel bombs on civilians and use air power to cause mass casualties. 

 

On  Obama backing down on the missile strike Hof writes " I still do not understand how such a gap between (Obama's) word and deed could have been permitted. It is an error that transcends Syria".

 

It is an error that is who Obama is, and always has been.

 

Hof writes that if Obama actually did something now to stop the slaughter in Syria including standing up to Putin, it would be a "reclamation of American honor".  But based on Obama's 17 year history in elected office,his past judgements, character and decision making, or lack of, that is not likely to happen. If it were, Obama would have backed up his words with deeds a long time ago.  He never has. He never will. So it will be left to Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail to either defend or repudiate the words of her own Special Envoy to Syria and the disaster of the Obama policy he has so harshly exposed. And what she would do  differently. If anything.