text:
The WCSN
Professional coverage of Western Canada's amateur sports
Alberta Wrestling
Alberta Wrestling Rosters
British Columbia Wrestling
Saskatchewan Wrestling
Manitoba Wrestling
Archived Hockey Content
ECBC
FC Edmonton
Conversations With Love
Wrestlesode
Monday Night Shaw
Quick Calls
Moment with Meniac
Dunkin' Dhooma
2018 NFL Draft Grades: NFC
Arik Krause May 5, 2020 Football, HOME, Opinion No Comments
It's come and gone. The 2018 NFL Draft concluded last week, and it was a good one as always.
A lot of trades, players falling, teams reaching. Good storylines such as Seahawks draft pick Shaquem Griffin who will now play alongside his brother in Seattle.
Maybe your team didn't pick who you wanted them to.
Thankfully we at Win Column love the NFL and have taken the time to go over every team's draft and grade them on an alphabetical scale.
We will start with the NFC.
The Picks:
Roquan Smith, LB, Georgia (8th), James Daniels, C, Iowa (39th), Anthony Miller, WR, Memphis (51st), Joel Iyiegbuniwe, LB, Western Kentucky (115th), Bilal Nichols, DE, Delaware (145th), Kylie Fitts, LB, Utah (181st), Javon Wims, WR, Georgia (224th).
Chicago may have had one of the more beneficial draft days out of all the NFL teams; the Bears were able to bolster their offence around Mitchell Trubisky with the picks of Miller and Daniels. While also getting the best defensive talent debatably in the draft with their pick of Smith at #8. Chicago did exactly what was expected of them in the draft, find a way to protect Trubisky and give him more options in the passing game.
Roquan Smith will more than likely be a future pro-bowl linebacker for the Bears and will be tasked with anchoring their defence
for the foreseeable future.
Depth picks in the later rounds at linebacker, and wide receiver gives the Bears options going forward as they look to make their first playoffs since 2010.
Frank Rangow, C, Arkansas (20th), Kerryon Johnson, RB, Auburn (43rd), Tracy Walker, DB, Louisiana-Lafayette (82nd), Da'Shawn Hand, DT, Alabama (114th), Tyrell Crosby, OL, Oregon (153rd), Nick Bawden, RB, San Diego State (237th).
The Detroit Lions solved some of the needs they had going into the 2018 NFL Draft but the moves they made to solve those needs are questioned by many.
The Lions traded up twice in the draft to get both Johnson and Hand, both questionable when it comes to value. The Lions moved up a fourth-rounder to move up eight spots to draft Johnson with other Running Backs still on the board and gave up a 2019 third-round pick to trade up and grab Hand.
The Lions needed running backs in the draft, and they'll need those running backs to perform next year so they can get the ball out of Stafford's hands quicker.
20th selection Rangow will help bolster an offensive line that allowed the 7th most sacks in the NFL in 2017.
Mike Hughes, CB, UFC (30th), Brian O'Neill, OT, Pittsburgh (62nd), Jalyn Holmes, DE, Ohio State (102nd), Tyler Conklin, TE, Central Michigan (157th), Daniel Carlson, K, Auburn (167th), Colby Gossett, OG, Appalachian State (213th), Ade Aruna, DE, Tulane (218th), Devante Downs, LB, Cal (225th).
As good as the Vikings defence is they needed more depth at the cornerback position and they achieved that by selecting Hughes in the first round, Hughes was an important piece in UCF's 2017 undefeated season. Hughes is a defender that is capable of ball-hawking quarterbacks and creating plays with his speed and athleticism.
The Vikings still need help on the offensive line though, specifically at guard and if they don't sign somebody in free agency Gossett will be expected to compete for a starting job.
All in all the Vikings had a solid draft, they'll be a contender next year, and most of these players will be expected to take rotational roles.
Jaire Alexander, CB, Louisville (18th), Josh Jackson, CB, Iowa (45th), Oren Burks, LB, Vanderbilt (88th), J'Mon Moore, WR, Missouri (133th) Cole Madison, OG, Washington State (138th), JK Scott, P, Alabama (172nd), Marquez Valdes-Scantling, WR, South Florida (174th), Equanimeous St. Brown, WR, Notre Dame (207th), James Looney, DT, Cal (232nd), Hunter Bradley, LS, Mississippi State (239th), Kendall Donnerson, LB, Southeast Missouri (248th)
The Packers had a pretty solid 2018 NFL Draft, not including the 2018 first-round pick they received when they traded down. The Packers secondary was horrible in 2017, and they've retooled that position with the acquisition of Alexander and Jackson, both rookies that should have an immediate impact in the NFL.
They were able to grab some offensive pieces later in the draft as well with Moore and St. Brown, the latter having the potential to be a steal in the draft after falling down the board.
Grabbing Burks and Looney in the later rounds also gives the Packers developmental pieces going forward as the Packers look to improve on a defence that allowed the 10th most yards in the NFL last season.
Calvin Ridley, WR, Alabama (26th), Isaiah Oliver, CB, Colorado (58th), Deadrin Senat, DT, South Florida (90th), Ito Smith, RB, Southern Mississippi (126th), Russell Gage, WR, LSU (194th), Foye Oluokun, LB, Yale (200th).
The Atlanta Falcons got a steal in the draft with grabbing Oliver at 58 in my opinion, I don't know why he fell down the board. Smith is an important addition in this draft due to the fact Tevin Coleman's contract ends after 2018 and he'll probably want to go somewhere he can potentially start.
Senat will be a player that can slot in immediately as the Falcons have a very mediocre run defence, he should help them right away.
Calvin Ridley will slot in nicely in the offence taking up Taylor Gabriel's old role and with the future of Julio Jones up in the air could be tasked with being a staple in the offence.
Jamie Sabau/Getty Images
D.J. Moore, WR, Maryland (24th), Donte Jackson, CB, LSU (55th), Rashaan Gaulden, DB, Tennessee (85th), Ian Thomas, TE, Indiana (101st), Marquis Haynes, LB, Mississippi (136th), Jermaine Carter, LB, Maryland (161st), Andre Smith, LB, North Carolina (234th), Kendrick Norton, DT, Miami (242nd).
Carolina found the replacement for Steve Smith in Moore, Moore is a quick, tough and a threat after the catch. Moore should give the Panthers offence a much-needed boost and provide another big target for Cam Newton to throw to.
Day 2 for the Panthers was all about bolstering their secondary with picks Jackson and Gaulden, Gaulden had a terrible combine and may be forced to playing safety but the Panthers will more than likely see how he performs at camp before making that decision.
On the third day for the Panthers, they found potential replacements for Kuechly and Olsen who aren't exactly getting younger.
Grade: C-
Marcus Davenport, DE, UTSA (14th), Tre'Quan Smith, WR, UCF (91st), Rick Leonard, OT, Florida State (127th), Natrell Jamerson, S, Wisconsin (164th), Kamrin Moore, DB, Boston College (189th), Boston Scott, RB, Louisiana Tech (201st), Will Clapp, C, LSU (245th).
The Saints wanted Davenport, that's for sure. Moving up 13 spots in the draft to grab Davenport cost the Saints a 2019 first-round pick and a 2018 fifth-round pick. Davenport will have to make an immediate impact in the next four years for the investment of picks to be worth it for them in the long run.
Tre'Quan Smith is a huge target who's fast and vertically capable of winning battles downfield giving Brees a dependable target to throw the ball to.
Day 3 for the Saints included a lot of developmental picks on a deep Saints team that should be able to make at least one more Super Bowl run.
I feel like the Saints should have addressed their backup Quarterback position going forward as Drew Brees isn't exactly getting younger and if he goes down they will be a team in trouble.
Vita Vea, DT, Washington (12th), Ronald Jones, RB, USC (38th), M.J. Stewart, DB, North Carolina (53rd), Carlton Davis, CB, Auburn (63rd), Alex Cappa, OG, Humboldt State (94th), Jordan Whitehead, S, Pitt (117th), Justin Watson, WR, Pennsylvania (144th), Jack Cichy, LB, Wisconsin (202nd).
Tampa Bay had a very good 2018 draft, not only did they fill positions of need, they also moved back twice and collected two second-round picks in the process. They choose Vita Vea over Derwin James which doesn't make much sense since I personally think their secondary needed a lot of help.
However, they did satisfy that need later in the draft with Stewart and Davis, they'll be expected to step up big and help a terrible Buccaneers secondary.
All in all, they met some needs, got some extra picks through the process.
Leighton Vander Esch, LB, Boise State (19th), Connor Williams, OL, Texas (50th), Michael Gallup, WR, CSU (81st), Dorance Armstrong Jr, DE, Kansas (116th), Dalton Schultz, TE, Stanford (137th), Mike White, QB, Western Kentucky (171st), Chris Covington, LB, Indiana (193rd), Cedrick Wilson Jr, WR, Boise State (208th), Bo Scarbrough, RB, Alabama (236th)
Although Connor Williams is an outstanding football player and is tremendous value at pick 50, did the Cowboys really need any more offensive linemen especially a guard? Plenty of corners were available like Isaiah Oliver, Donte Jackson, and M.J. Stewart - the Cowboys needed that position to be filled more than the guard position.
However, I liked their first-round pick, Leighton Vander Esch. They could now potentially have the best linebacking core in the NFL with Sean Lee and Jaylon Smith. That is of course if they can all stay healthy.
A sneak good pick for them too was in the seventh-round with they selected Bo Scarbrough from Alabama.
Saquon Barkley, RB, Penn State (2nd), Will Hernandez, G, UTEP (34th), Lorenzo Carter, LB, Georgia (66th), B.J. Hill, DT, N.C. State (69th), Kyle Lauletta, QB, Richmond (108th), RJ McIntosh, DT, Miami (139th)
The tone of the Giants draft was set after they pick Saquon Barkley at two. What it suggested was that they're in win-now mode, and I 100% agree with that move.
Barkley will come into their lineup and make an immediate impact. His biggest impact could be on Eli Manning's career. Eli hasn't exactly looked great the last few years, and that's largely due to the fact he's not had an effective running game. Barkley will change that.
As for their other picks, Will Hernandez was a fantastic pick at 34. The UTEP product will keep Manning upright, something that the Giants have struggled to do recently, and create big holes for Barkley to explode through. Their third round pick, Lorenzo Carter, will also have a good shot at cracking the starting lineup.
Dallas Goedert, TE, South Dakota State (49th), Avonte Maddox, CB, Pittsburgh (125th), Josh Sweat, DE, FSU (130th), Matt Pryor, OT, TCU (206th), Jordan Mailata, OT (233rd)
Philadelphia did a great job in replacing the players that they lost in free agency with the additions of Dallas Goebert and Avonte Maddox especially.
Dallas Goebert -> Michael Burton (Chicago Bears), Brent Celek (Released)
Avonte Maddox -> Patrick Robinson (New Orleans Saints)
Goebert will give Wentz a nice duo at tight end with Zach Ertz coming off a career year.
Philly continued to add to depth to already a deep secondary unit by picking Maddox with the 125th pick.
Moving onto their remaining selections, they simply just added depth at the right positions. They proved last year that you can never have too many edge rushers and that would suggest why they chose Josh Sweat.
Da'Ron Payne, DT, Alabama (13th), Derrius Guice, RB, LSU (59th), Geron Christian, OT, Louisville (74th), Troy Apke, S, Penn State (109th), Tim Settle, DT, Virginia Tech (163rd), Shaun Dion Hamilton, LB, Alabama (197th), Greg Stroman, CB, Virginia Tech (241th), Trey Quinn, WR, SMU (256th)
The Redskins got maybe the steal of the draft with Derrius Guice. Even with the news that he has attitude problems that doesn't take away the talent brings to any lineup. He brings a vast improvement to the Skins offence.
The addition of both Payne and Settle were much-needed pickups. Back when they had Terrance Knighton and Chris Baker on their line, their defence was very effective. I think we'll see some similarities between these two rookies.
Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA (10th), Christian Kirk, WR, Texas A & M (47th), Mason Cole, C, Michigan (97th), Chase Edmonds, RB, Fordham (134th), Chris Campbell, CB, Penn State (182nd), Korrey Cunningham, G, Cincinnati (254th)
Whenever you get your quarterback of the future you're a winner. Rosen is a stud who could quite honestly be the week one starter for the Cardinals.
They also brought in Kirk who can now start to build a relationship with Rosen and also learn from future Hall of Famer Larry Fitzgerald.
The Cardinals are a great team with enough talent to get themselves back in the players. What they did on draft day only added to that.
Joseph Noteboom, OT, TCU (89th), Brian Allen, C, Michigan State (111th), John Franklin-Myers, DE, Stephan F. Austin (135th), Micah Kaiser, LB, Virginia (147th)
Coming into the draft the Rams had very few holes to fill at the draft after what has been a fantastic offseason for the organization.
They added depth to both sides of the ball which is never a bad thing.
Not the most glorious draft class, but they didn't really have to do much.
Mike McGlinchey, OT, Notre Dame (9th), Dante Pettis, WR, Washington (44th), Fred Warner, LB, BYU (70th), Tarvarius Moore, S, Southern Miss (95th), Kentavius Street, DE, N.C. State (128th), D.J. Reed, CB, Kansas State (142nd), Marcell Harris, S, Florida (184th), Jullian Taylor, DT, Temple (233rd), Richie James, WR, Middle Tennessee (240th)
San Fransisco did a great job of helping out Jimmy Garoppolo in the opening two rounds. The addition of Mike McGlinchey now gives Garoppolo A+ protection at both tackle positions with Joe Staley playing the other side. And Dante Pettis gives him a target who he can develop with over time.
Throughout the back end of the draft, they address many areas and made their roster much deeper than it has been in the past few years.
I am personally excited to see what Kentavius Street can bring to this lineup. In his four years at N.C. State he racked up 19.5 sacks.
Rashaad Penny, RB, San Diego State (27th), Rasheem Green, DE, USC (76th), Will Dissly, TE, Washington (120th), Shaquem Griffin, LB, UCF (141st), Tre Flowers, DB, Oklahoma State (146th), Michael Dickson, P, Texas (149th), Jamarco Jones, OT, Ohio State (168th), Jacob Martin, DE, Temple (186th), Alex McGough, QB, FIU (220th)
Confusingly it took the Seahawks until the 168th pick to attempt to repair their offensive line. A number of top-ranked linemen were available at the 27th pick - James Daniels, Will Hernandez, and Connor Williams - but instead, they opted to selected, San Diego State running back, Rashaad Penny who they probably could've taken with their 76th pick.
What makes Seattle's draft even more strange is that they even selected a punter prior to taking offensive tackle Jamarco Jones.
Overall, their draft was okay? They got players at a position of need but also didn't prioritize what they REALLY needed… like the offensive line.
If you'd like to see more content from Win Column Sports follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/WCSportsCA
We're always looking for contributers, get in touch with us through Twitter!
Tagged on: 2018 Calvin Ridley D.J. Moore draft Jaire Alexander Leighton Vander Esch Marcus Davenport Mike Hughes NFL Rashaad Penny Saquon Barkley Shaquen Griffin
← MLB Survivor Pool Week 6: Just Like That We Are Down To 2
WWE Backlash Preview and Predictions →
Monster Pro Wrestling Recap: Edmonton, June 1 2019
June 2, 2020 Spencer Love 0
Edmonton Prospects Undefeated Following Opening Weekend
May 28, 2020 Spencer Love 0
Monday Night Hayden: 19/02/18 RAW Preview
February 19, 2021 Hayden Love 0
Win Column Sports Partners
Backbreaker Media • Below the Ice • Wrestlesode • The Okanagan Wrestling Review • Powerslam TV • Dunkin' Dhooma •
Proudly Supporting Albertan Sports
Edmonton Prospects • Prairie Wrestling Alliance • Real Canadian Wrestling • Monster Pro Wrestling • Edmonton Stingers • Sherwood Park Crusaders • FC Edmonton •
Arik Krause on Twitter
Follow the WCSN!
Win Column Archives Select Month February 2020 (28) January 2020 (42) December 2019 (32) November 2019 (31) October 2019 (32) September 2019 (30) August 2019 (26) July 2019 (23) June 2019 (35) May 2019 (58) April 2019 (46) March 2019 (46) February 2019 (42) January 2019 (36) December 2018 (49) November 2018 (39) October 2018 (48) September 2018 (35) August 2018 (57) July 2018 (70) June 2018 (54) May 2018 (26) April 2018 (57) March 2018 (43) February 2018 (36) January 2018 (51) December 2017 (48) November 2017 (37) October 2017 (15) September 2017 (11) August 2017 (22) July 2017 (9) June 2017 (7) May 2017 (25) April 2017 (40) March 2017 (18) February 2017 (24) January 2017 (3)
Categories Select Category Alberta Sports (537) ECBC (7) Edmonton Prospects (85) Edmonton Stingers (43) FC Edmonton (26) Baseball (136) Basketball (93) Esports (7) Football (129) CFL (35) Fantasy Football (41) Football Breaking News (4) NFL (41) Hockey (178) Archived Hockey Content (20) Edmonton Oil Kings (14) Edmonton Oilers (13) Fantasy Hockey (2) NHL Breaking News (5) NHL Saturday Slate (30) HOME (1,140) Lacrosse (13) Misc. (5) Opinion (169) Pro Wrestling (639) AEW (3) Impact Wrestling (5) Independent Wrestling (347) Alberta Rosters (1) Alberta Wrestling (50) British Columbia Wrestling (2) Saskatchewan Wrestling (1) NXT (90) Opinion (52) Pay-Per-Views (31) RAW (50) Smackdown Live (51) WCSN Podcasts (202) Backbreaker Media (37) Conversations With Love (53) Fry and the Guy (15) Is It OVER Yet? (6) Moment with Meniac (11) Monday Night Shaw (11) Over the Top Rope (75) Quick Calls (2) Sounds of Struggle (4) Wrestlesode (15) Wrestling Breaking News (64) WWE (1) Roller Derby (10) E-Ville Roller Derby (1) Oil City Roller Derby (6) Soccer (42)
BREAKING: Maverick Jack Returns to the Ring
BREAKING: Dylon Stone Returns to Real Canadian Wrestling
Wrestlesode: Episode 61 | Diving into Saskatchewan Wrestling with PPW feat. Mike the Sign Guy
Conversations With Love 57: A Conversation With "Two Scoops" Kc Spinelli
Last Week in Alberta Wrestling: February 12th - 18th, 2020
Copyright © 2020 The WCSN. All rights reserved.


text:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<resources>
    <!-- From: file:/C:/Users/CK/AndroidStudioProjects/OMGAndroid/app/build/intermediates/exploded-aar/com.android.support/appcompat-v7/23.0.1/res/values-hdpi/values-hdpi.xml -->
    <eat-comment/>
    <style name="Base.Widget.AppCompat.DrawerArrowToggle" parent="Base.Widget.AppCompat.DrawerArrowToggle.Common">
          <item name="barLength">18.66dp</item>
          <item name="gapBetweenBars">3.33dp</item>
          <item name="drawableSize">24dp</item>
     </style>
</resources>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Writers have taken pen to paper in protest against Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos and his company's methods and are calling for consumers, publishers and their fellow authors to boycott the online retail giant.
The letter to German business paper Handelsblatt, which has been signed by more than 100 German authors, is in response to the company using its market position as a way to pressure lower book prices from publishers.
"We have to explain to our readers that the manipulation of the recommended books and delaying shipments of books by publishers who push back at Amazon's pressure tactics are everyday occurrences at Amazon," Regula Venske, the general secretary of PEN Germany, an organisation supporting writers, told the newspaper.
The letter will be published next week. According to Handelsblatt, bestsellers Ingrid Noll and Nele Neuhaus, as well as Tatort script-writer Fred Breinersdorfer are among those who have co-signed the letter.
An Amazon spokesperson told news agency dpa that they cannot comment on a letter which they have yet to receive.
Germany is Amazon's biggest European market, accounting for 14.2 percent of Amazon's total sales last year.
On August 8, 2014, more than 900 authors, including John Grisham and Stephen King, signed a letter of support of book publisher Hatchette against Amazon. The publisher has been embroiled in a battle with Amazon over royalties and pricing rights for most of this year. Hatchette authors include James Patterson, Stephanie Meyer of the Twilight series and contemporary sci-fi favourite, Orson Scott Card.
Amazon is in a similar battle with German publishing house Bonnier, which claims the retailers is creating an unfair book market.


North Queensland's other JT, Jason Taumalolo, admits he still wants to get better after producing one of his best games for the Cowboys on Saturday night.
Before 18,415 fans last night, North Queensland defeated St George 24-12 on a wet night at 1300Smiles Stadium, led by a rampaging Taumalolo.
The 117kg monster forward amassed a personal best 301 running metres in 64 minutes after being shifted out on to the left edge for the Cowboys.
His previous record was 283 metres set in Round 15, 2017 against Melbourne.
The move to the edge proved key to the Cowboys success after he made two crucial linebreaks which both led to North Queensland tries.
Despite his unstoppable performance, the Tongan international admitted he thinks he can still do better.
"I was struggling for the whole game," he said.
"That tends to happen in round one.
"Obviously at times, I didn't know whether (playing on the edge) would work or not. It was more the physical side of things. At the start, we were doing back to back defensive sets and the boys hung on there. Personally from my side of things, I think I can do a bit better there (defensively) but it's still only round one.
"It's just more of a mental thing for myself. I was tired."
Coach Paul Green said Taumalolo's ability to play on the edge gave him the flexibility to rotate his monster forward pack.
"He was good, he was very good," he said.
"He was a handful, as always.
"I thought (shifting him to the edge) worked pretty well. I thought it kept pressure on the opposition in that middle of the field.
"It gives me a bit of flexibility too, depending on the style of game we want to play."
Last night's win broke North Queensland's three-game losing streak against St George and was their first win against the Red V since April 2, 2016.
The Cowboys were slow out of the blocks, falling to a 6-0 deficit after just 11 minutes through missed tackles and costly errors.
It took them half an hour to get first points on the board but once they were over, the tries continued to be piled on.
Green's late minute change in benching Cowboys veteran Gavin Cooper and starting former McGuire proved to be a bittersweet move.
McGuire showed some grunt up the middle of the field but his aggression proved too costly when he was penalised for a shoulder charge early in the second half.
The club's new captain Michael Morgan also didn't seem fazed by the loss of champion playmaker Johnathan Thurston as he led his team from the front foot.
The Cowboys' $5 million man proved why he was worth the price tag with a good kicking performance topped off with a try in the 58th minute.
The Dragons came close to posting the first points of the match had it not been for some good scrambling defence by Cowboys' centre Justin O'Neill.
A smart 40/20 kick by Morgan was able to put North Queensland in good attacking position but failed to capitalise following a McGuire knock on ten metres out from their try line.
Fullback Jordan Kahu knocked the ball on ten metres out from the Dragons' line and was pounced on by five-eighth Corey Norman which resulted in a try to centre Euan Aitken in the next play.
The closest the Cowboys came to crossing the line came when right centre Tom Opacic was able to break through the line but lost the ball in attempting to reach for the line.
Cowboys' utility John Asiata produced an outstanding offload to a barnstorming Jason Taumalolo in the 32nd minute to set up North Queensland's first try.
Quick hands by Morgan and O'Neill was able to send Javid Bowen over in the left corner.
Fellow winger Nene Macdonald was able to score his first try against his old club when he crashed over just before halftime, taking the Cowboys' to an 8-6 lead at halftime.
With sixteen tackle breaks at halftime, Green would not have been impressed with his side's defence.
However, their attack in the second stanza was much better through hard runs up the middle and clever offloads.
Morgan's four-pointer was followed up by a Te Maire Martin try in the 65th minute following another linebreak by Tauamalolo.
Their evening was topped off with a brilliant try to O'Neill, following a clever Morgan grubber through the defensive line.
Dragons winger Jordan Pereira scored in the dying seconds of the match to take the final score to 24-12.


text:
Faded elderly rocker to perform on Barry O
THE TWINKIE.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, BRUCE SPRINGESTEEN GARNERED HEADLINES SAYING HE WOULD SIT THE ELECTION OUT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SMART THING SINCE HE'S HARMED HIS IMAGE AND HIS SALES WITH 2008 WHORING FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.
BUT NOW PIG-BOY BRUCE, THE WHITEST OF ALL THE SLAVE OWNING BAND 'LEADERS,' IS HITTING THE ROAD FOR OHIO.
IN HER NEW AUTOBIOGRAPHY CYNDI LAUPER REVEALS THAT IN THE LATE 80S SHE ENDED UP AT A PARTY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FESTIVE, MUSIC TYPES, INSTEAD IT WAS A BUNCH OF POMPOUS MEN AND THEIR WIVES WHO DARED NOT SPEAK. CYNDI MADE THAT OBSERVATION TO THE ONLY OTHER WOMAN WHO WASN'T WAX WORKS PRESENT, JULIANNE PHILLIPS. BRUCE WAS NOT ONLY AMUSED, HE WAS OFFENDED BY JULIANNE AND CYNDI'S DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE HE'S A PIG.
AS CYNDI EXPLAINS, SHE LOVED HIM WHEN SHE THOUGHT HE REPRESENTED THE WORKING CLASS BUT HERE HE WAS IN THE GREEDY EIGHTIES JUST ONE MORE WHORE FOR BIG BUSINESS, ONE MORE OPPRESSOR.
IS IT ANY SURPRISE THAT THE TWINKIE WOULD WHORE FOR BARRY O YET AGAIN?
NO MORE SURPRISING THAN THAT HE WOULD CHEAT ON HIS NEW WIFE AND ALL THE BOY WRITERS WHO DREAM OF SUCKING BRUCE'S AGED AND LIMP COCK WOULD GO AROUND LYING IN PRINT THAT BRUCE WAS FAITHFUL -- SAME WAY THEY PRETEND THAT HE'S FAITHFUL TODAY.
IN OTHER WORDS, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN -- YES, THESE ARE 'BOOS' -- F**K OFF.
Wednesday the US House Oversight Committee held a hearing in the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. We covered this in the Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" and Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot." Ava covered it with "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing," Kat covered it in "What we learned at today's hearing" and Wally covered it in "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment." If we had more room, we'd note variations on the following.
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: More importantly, they held a broad news conference over the phone in which they made it very clear that it had never been the State Department's position -- I repeat, never been the State Department's position -- that in fact this assault was part of a reaction to a video or the like. This is corroborated by numerous witnesses and whistle blowers. Contrary to early assertions by the administration, let's understand, there was no protest. And cameras reveal that. And the State Department, the FBI and others have that video.
Over and over, we heard about this. Over and over, in the hearing, the State Dept talked about this.
The press isn't doing their damn job. If you doubt me on that, please note that not only has the video been widely dispersed within the administration, it is a little over fifty minutes long and Issa, in questioning the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy in open session on Wednesday, established that a government body is keeping the tape from the American people and from the Congress. That government is not the FBI nor is it any division of "law enforcement." This was also established in open session. The press should have run with that, headlines should have asked who has this tape, why is it being kept from the American people and from the Congress?
The White House repeatedly lied about the attacks. Claimed it was due to a video. Claimed it was protesters. Lie, lie, lie. A government body now has the tape. The FBI states they are done with the tape, they have no objection to Congress having the tape. What body is keeping the tape from Congress? That's what the press should be asking. They should also be asking why the tape is being kept from Congress?
Four Americans were killed in the attacks: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Ambassador Chris Stevens and Tyrone Woods. Wednesday night, Sean Smith's mother Pat Smith spoke with Anderson Cooper for CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. Here and here for video, here for transcript. Here's an excerpt of Pat Smith speaking about her son:
COOPER: Pat, I appreciate you being with us. And I'm just so sorry for your loss. What do you want people to know about your son, about Sean?
PAT SMITH, SON KILLED IN BENGHAZI ATTACK: Well, god. He was my only child. And he was good, he was good at what he did, he'd loved it.
COOPER: He loved working with computers?
SMITH: Computers, radios. He was good at what he did.
COOPER: Was that something he had done as a kid? I mean how did -- did he always -- was he always good with computer?
SMITH: Well, when he was a kid, computers weren't out yet. And --
And then they were out and he -- I got a computer and he started playing with them and he started showing me how you could build a flame thrower and -- by just watching a computer and then told you how to do it. So that's how it started.
We'll note another excerpt later in the interview. The administration promised Pat Smith she would be given answers about how her son died. She has not been given information.
COOPER: Who told you that they would give you information?
SMITH: You'll love this. Obama told me. Hillary promised me. Joe Biden -- Joe Biden is a pleasure. He was a real sweetheart. But he also told -- they all told me that -- they promised me. And I told them please, tell me what happened. Just tell me what happened.
COOPER: So you're still waiting to hear from somebody about what happened to your son? About what they know? Or even what they don't know.
SMITH: Right. Right. Officially yes. I told them, please don't give me any baloney that comes through with this political stuff. I don't want political stuff. You can keep your political, just tell me the truth. What happened. And I still don't know. In fact, today I just heard something more that he died of smoke inhalation.
COOPER: So you don't even know the cause of death?
SMITH: I don't even know if that's true or not. No, I don't. I don't know where. I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son's? I don't know if he was shot. I don't know -- I don't know. They haven't told me anything. They are still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.
That Susan Rice, what -- she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was -- it was because of this film that came out.
COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest?
SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did. Leon Panetta actually took my face in his hands like this and he said, trust me. I will tell you what happened. And so far, he's told me nothing. Nothing at all. And I want to know.
COOPER: It's important for you to know all the details no matter how horrible.
SMITH: Yes.
As she knows, she was lied to. And the White House has made no effort to correct those lies to her.
"The Post Debate Debate (Ava and C.I.)"
"More US soldiers sent to Baghdad"
"Easy Black Bean Tacos"
"The jobs, the numbers, the facts"
"Scott Horsley campaigns for Barack"
"Mommy, he's my boyfriend!"
"I thought I did (but I didn't)"
"Leave Stacey Dash alone"
"Stupid Diane Rehm and her stupid guests"
"revenge: end of the white haired man"
"The debates"
"Confusion"
"Diane Rehm is f**king nuts"
"89? Yep, 89."
"The debate"
"Dead Ringer"
"The Good Wife"
"Enough"
"The sham"
"Idiot of the week"
"Fringe"
"THIS JUST IN! STAND UP FAIL!"
"Maybe save it for the post-White House career"
Maybe save it for the post-White House career
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, AS SEEN IN THE PHOTO ABOVE, HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO TURN HIS CAMPAIGN EVENTS INTO STAND UP ON THE PREMISE THAT "IF THEY'RE LAUGHING AT ME ANYWAY, I MIGHT AS WELL TELL A FEW JOKES."
BUT BIG BIRD AND OTHER ONE LINERS AREN'T HIDING THE DECAY AND DISHONESTY.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED HENNY YOUNGMAN AS A PRESIDENT.
Yesterday the House Oversight Committee gathered for a hearing. What was the hearing about?
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: On September 11, 2012, four brave Americans serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. Tyrone Woods spent two decades as a Navy Seal serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected the American diplomatic personnel. Tyrone leaves behind a widow and three children. Glen Doherty, also a former Seal and an experienced paramedic, had served his country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His family and colleagues grieve today for his death. Sean Smith, a communications specialist, joined the State Dept after six years in the United States Air Force. Sean leaves behind a widow and two young children. Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man I had known personally during his tours, US Ambassador to Libya, ventured into a volatile and dangerous situation as Libyans revolted against the long time Gaddafi regime. He did so because he believed the people of Libya wanted and deserved the same things we have: freedom from tyranny.
Issa also noted that some Americans were injured in the attack. Appearing before the Committee were the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene R. Lamb, the State Dept's always less than truthful Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management), Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and the US military's Lt Col Andrew Wood. In yesterday's snapshot, we covered a portion of the hearing. In addition, last night Kat reported on the hearing with "What we learned at today's hearing," Ava reported on it with "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing" and Wally reported on it with "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment." What does this have to do with Iraq?
A great deal. No other foreign country has such a large group of people with the US State Dept in it. Two weeks after the Consulate in Libya was attacked, rockets were launched at the US Consulate in Basra The White House falsely blamed the attack in Libya on an "angry mob" that got out of control while protesting a video on YouTube. There was no protest in Libya -- and as Issa noted in yesterday's hearing, the State Dept stated they did not believe there was and did not advance the notion that there was. But there was a protest at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Some may scratch their heads over that. That embassy is in the Green Zone, a heavily guarded section of Baghdad that most Iraqis cannot even enter. The protest at the US Embassy was one lone person, an MP with Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc. Whether it has to do with the lies the White House repeatedly told or with the realities of what went down, the events in Libya could have taken place at the Basra Consulate or at any other location across the globe. As Issa noted in the hearing yesterday, "[. . .] there are hundreds and hundreds of facilities similar to this around the world, there are thousands of personnel serving this country who -- at any time, in any country -- could be a target." A point made even clearer today with Jeffrey Fleishman and Zaid al-Alayaa (Los Angeles Times) reporting, "A Yemeni security investigator at the U.S. Embassy here was shot and killed Thursday by masked men on a motorcycle in the latest assassination by militants of political and security targets in cities across the country." (Cedric and Wally covered the Yemen violence this morning.)
I had no interest in the Democratic Committee members yesterday. As Ruth pointed out in her post last night, PBS' The NewsHour missed the news from the hearing because they instead focused on turning the hearing into a horse race. There were not equal sides in the hearing.
You had one side focused on finding out what happened and how. You had another side focused on creating drama -- drama is what PBS focused on leaving their audience highly uninformed. I was being kind and just emphasizing what mattered in the hearing -- no Democratic contribution to the hearing mattered. But if you're not getting how bad it is -- from Wally, Ava and Kat's reporting -- then let's note that nonsense began the minute a Committee Democrat spoke.
Ranking Member Elijah Cummings: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me be very clear, you said that your side of the aisle grieves the loss of our fellow countrymen. It's not just your side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, it's this side of the aisle and our entire country.
Cummings came in spoiling for a fight. Issa didn't say "my side of the aisle." He didn't even say "aisle." Does Cummings need a hearing aid or is "dais" an unfamiliar term? The Committee members face the witnesses table. The Committee members are on a raised platform -- a "dais," Cummings -- and at higher level than the witness -- for psychological intimidation, to be honest. So Chair Darrell Issa stated, "We join here today expressing, from this side of the dais, our deepest sympathies for the families," and the term was "dais." This side. That means all the Committee members (and staff) seated and facing the witness table. Is that clear now?
So which is it, Cummings? Do we need to buy you a hearing aid or a dictionary? Let us know and maybe don't use your time to lecture others that "we should listen carefully" unless you're trying to pay homage to Gilda Radner's Emily Latella.
DC Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton is a joke and makes DC a joke. Don't give us all a lecture about how the right questions need to be asked when you never ask a question and yield your time. Don't think an hour into the hearing when you want to speak again that you're bringing up Mitt Romney -- no one else had -- is seen as anything but what it was, partisan whoring. If you're supposed to represent DC, starting acting a hell of a lot more mature, start being a lot more professional. We've already had Eleanor offer junk science and get smacked down by the FBI during Barack's term. She seems bound and determined to top that. You'd think she'd be interested in trying to appear professional. Instead, she makes herself -- and DC statehood by proxy -- a joke. Over 20 years in office, over 75 years old, maybe it's time for her to consider retirement?
Only one Democrat did not self-disgrace, US House Rep Dennis Kucinich.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Mr. Kennedy has testified today that US interests and values are at stake in Libya and that the US is better off because we went to Benghazi. Really? You think that after ten years in Iraq and eleven years in Afghanistan that our country, the US would have learned the consequences and limits of interventionism. You would think that after trillions have been wasted on failed attempts at democracy building abroad while our infrastructure crumbles at home, Congress and the administration would re-examine priorities. Today we're engaging in a discussion about the security failures of Benghazi. There was a security failure. Four Americans including our ambassador, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed. Their deaths are a national tragedy. My sympathy is with the families of those who were killed. There has to be accountability. I haven't heard that yet. We have an obligation to protect those who protect us. That's why this Congress needs to ask questions. The security situation did not happen overnight because of a decision made by someone at the State Dept. We could talk about hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts for funding for embassy security over the last two years as a result of a blind pursuit of fiscal austerity. We could talk about whether it's prudent to rely so heavily on security contractors rather than our own military or State Dept personnel. We could do a he-said-she-said about whether the State Dept should have beefed up security at the embassy in Benghazi. But we owe it to the diplomatic corps who serves our nation to start at the beginning and that's what I shall do. The security threats in Libya including the unchecked extremist groups who are armed to the teeth exist because our nation spurred on a civil war destroying the security and stability of Libya. And, you know, no one defends Gaddafi. Libya was not in a meltdown before the war. In 2003, Gaddafi reconciled with the community of nations by giving up his pursuit of nuclear weapons. At the time, President Bush said Gaddafi's actions made our country and our world safer. Now during the Arab Spring, uprisings across the Middle East occurred and Gaddafi made ludicrous threats against Benghazi. Based on his verbal threats, we intervented. Absent constitutional authority, I might add. We bombed Libya, we destroyed their army, we obliterated their police stations. Lacking any civil authority, armed brigades control security. al Qaeda expanded its presence. Weapons are everywhere. Thousands of shoulder-to-air missiles are on the loose. Our military intervention led to greater instability in Libya. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, made that argument to try to stop the war. It's not surprising given the inflated threat and the grandiose expectations inherent in our nation building in Libya that the State Dept was not able to adequately protect our diplomats from this predicatable threat. It's not surprising. And it's also not acceptable. It's easy to blame someone else -- like a civil servant at the State Dept. We all know the game. It's harder to acknowledge that decades of American foreign policy have directly contributed to regional instability and the rise of armed militias around the world. It's even harder to acknowledge Congress' role in the failure to stop the war in Libya, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, the war in Yemen, the war in Somolia and who knows where else? It's harder to recognize Congress' role in the failure to stop the drone attacks that are still killing innocent civilians and strengthening radical elements abroad. We want to stop the attacks on our embassies? Let's stop trying to overthrow governments. This should not be a partisan issue. Let's avoid the hype. Let's look at the real situation here. Interventions do not make us safer. They do not protect our nation. They are themselves a threat to America. Now, Mr. Kennedy, I would like to ask you, is al Qaeda more or less established in Libya since our involvement?
Patrick Kennedy: Mr. Kucinich, I will have to take that question for the record. I am not an intelligence expert.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Oh. You don't have the intelligence, you're saying? Well I'm going to go on to the next question --
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: Mr. Kucinich, I think the other two may have an opinion.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Well I wanted to ask Mr. Kennedy. Next question, Ambassador Kennedy, how many shoulder-to-air missiles that are capable of shooting down civilian passenger airlines are still missing in Libya? And this happened since our intervention. Can you answer that question?
Patrick Kennedy: No, sir. I'll be glad to provide it for the record.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: You're saying you do not know?
Patrick Kennedy: I do not know, sir. It's not within my normal purview of operations with the State Dept.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Does anyone else here know how many shoulder-to-air missiles that can shoot down civilian airliners are still loose in Libya? Anyone know?
Eric Nordstrom: The figures that we were provided are fluid but the rough approximation is between ten and twenty thousand.
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: The gentleman's time has expired. Did you want them to answer anything about al Qaeda growth?
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: If anyone there knows.
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: If anyone has an answer on that one, they can answer and then we'll go on.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Yeah, is al Qaeda more or less established in Libya since our involvement?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Yes, sir. There presence grows everday. They are certainly more established than we are.
Only Dennis Kucinich conducted himself in a consistent manner. Regardless of was in the White House, Dennis would have made the same remarks to the same events.
The rest of the Democrats came in eager to attack the Republicans on the Committee and eager to discredit the hearing. It was not pretty and did not speak to the better qualities of the United States of America. It did not speak to 'obstructionist Republicans.' It did demonstrate that members of the Committee on the Democratic side were more interested in covering for the White House than they were in demanding answers as to how four Americans ended up dead. It was not a glorious moment for DC. Since we're spending a second day on the hearing and since we've already done one day's worth of work on this issue, we can take a moment to note that the Democrats were disruptive and distractive. And that's about all that's worth noting about their embarrassing behavior.
Let's do two excerpts from the hearing for when the State Dept's Lamb was being questioned.
Chair Darrell Issa: Ms. Lamb, yesterday you told us in testimony that you received from Mr. Nordstrom a recommendation but not a request for more security and you admitted that in fact you had previously said that if he submitted a request, you would not support it. Is that correct?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, after our meeting last night, I went back and re -- At the time --
Chair Darrell Issa: First, answer the question. Then I'll let you expand. Did you say that yesterday? That you would not support it if he -- if he gave you the request?
Charlene Lamb: Under the current conditions, yes.
Chair Darrell Issa: Okay. And then last night, you discovered what?
Charlene Lamb: I went back and reviewed the July 9 cable from which I was referring and that was not in that cable. I've been reviewing lots of documents.
Chair Darrell Issa: Well we have a July 9th cable. It's one of them that I put in the record --
Charlene Lamb: Yes.
Chair Darrell Issa: -- that in fact has the word "request." It doesn't meet your standards of perhaps what you call a formal request, you described that, but it does request more assets. If you looked at the July 9th cable -- and this less than 60 days, roughly 60 days beforehand -- it says summary and action request, "Embassy Tripoli requests continued TDY security support for an additional 60-days." Now yesterday you told us, under penalty of perjury essentially, that it wasn't a request, it was a recommendation. Does the word request mean request? And are you prepared to say today that they requested these assets above and beyond what they had on September 11th rather than that they simply recommended?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, we discussed that there was no justification that normally comes with a request. That cable was a very detailed and complex cable outlining --
Chair Darrell Issa: Right. Well we've now read that cable. And you're right, it is detailed and in several more places expresses concerns. The September 11th cable from the now deceased Ambassador expresses current concerns on that day. Repeatedly in the cables that were denied to us, what we see is people telling you that al Qaeda type organizations are coming together. Now the problem I have is that the State Dept is basically saying that, "Mr. Nordstrom didn't do his job, he didn't make a formal request with justification. The Ambassador didn't do his job. He didn't make a good enough case." And that's what you're standing behind here today? In addition to saying, "Well there were five people there therefore --"? A embassy -- a compound owned by us and serving like a consulate was in fact breached less than 60 days before -- aproximately 60 days before -- the murder of the ambassador in that facility. Isn't that true?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of nine-eleven for what had been agreed upon.
Chair Darrell Issa: Okay, my time has expired. To start off by saying that you had the correct number and our ambassador and three other individuals are dead, people are in the hospital recovering because it only took moments to breach that facility somehow doesn't ring true to the American people.
We'll jump ahead to right after Patrick Kennedy confirmed that privately he was terming the attack a terrorist attack.
US House Rep Dan Burton: [. . .] because today, as I listen to people, and you, Ms. Lamb, have described these attackers in a number of ways but you don't mention terrorist at all? Why is that? I mean the compound had been attacked once before and breached. And these people had all these weapons -- projectiles, grenades. All kinds of weapons. Why would you call this anything but a terrorist attack? And why do you call them attackers?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, I have just presented the fact as they've come across. I am not making any judgments on my own and I am leaving that --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Okay. Well let me ask a couple of other questions. There were 16 troops that were there at that compound and they requested them to be kept there. And they sent a suggestion to you that they be kept there. And then you responded saying that if that was presented to you, you would not accept that. Was that your sole decision?
Charlene Lamb: Sir, they were not in Benghazi. They were in Tripoli. I just want to make sure that we're --
US House Rep Dan Burton: I understand.
Charlene Lamb: Okay. And when the cable came in where RSO Nordstrom laid out all of his staffing requirements and needs, I asked our desk officer to go back and sit down with him or through e-mails and telephone conversations to work out all the details and line up exactly how many security personnel, armed security personnel did he need --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Okay, okay. But you did not agree with that assessment that they needed those there.
Charlene Lamb: No, sir. We had been training people --
US House Rep Dan Burton: I just --
Charlene Lamb: -- people, Libyans to replace them.
US House Rep Dan Burton: No. Did you not say that if that was presented to you, you would not accept it?
Charlene Lamb: He was posing --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Did you or did you not say that?
Charlene Lamb: Yes, sir, I said that personally I would not support it. He could request it --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Why is that? Why is that?
Charlene Lamb: Because --
US House Rep Dan Burton: You know about all these other attacks which had taken place. There had been twelve or fourteen.
Charlene Lamb: We had been training the local Libyans and arming them --
US House Rep Dan Burton: Well now --
Charlene Lamb: -- for almost a year.
US House Rep Dan Burton: -- let me interrupt to say that the local Libyan militia that was there, many of them that were there were supposedly told by friends and relatives that there was going to be an imminent attack on that compound. And so many of them left. They didn't want to be involved in the attack --
Charlene Lamb: Sir, with due respect -- Wait-wait-wait.
US House Rep Dan Buton: -- so I don't understand why you say out of hand that there was no need for those 16 troops to be there.
Let's move to the man the Democrats on the Committee thought they were serving -- when, in fact, they're supposed to serve the people and they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor have an important new book entitled The Endgame. It's a major book that should be inspiring discussions and agreements and disagreements, the op-ed pages and public affairs programs should be focused on this book. Instead it's largely greeted by silence because the authors commit a mortal sin: They dare to criticize Barack.
But you can't tell the story of Iraq without taking on Barack and his craven nature.
Maybe it would just be considered a venial sin if it weren't an election year? But here are Gordon and Trainor telling the story of how Barack lied to people and what a big fake he is. For example, you may remember then-Senator Hillary Clinton came out against the Status Of Forces Agreement in theory (it had been written at that time). She stated, rightly, that treaties go through the Senate per the Constitution. She said it and Barack, who never had an independent or original thought of his own had to play myna bird, began repeating it. Others were in agreement as well. Senators Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, the entire Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That's because the Bush administration was going to by-pass the Senate. And Congress -- House and Senate -- didn't approve of that.
And then Barack got the nomination and created a little page at the website where he and Joe were going to continue to oppose this. The Constitution, he insisted, must be honored.
Until, of course, that pesky Constitution might cause a problem for Barack. From the book:
Another important step to facilitate an agreement [with Iraq] was quietly taken by the Obama team. Throughout the campaign, Obama and his aides had publicly insisted that the SOFA needed to be subjected to Congressional review. But that raised the possibility that the Iraqis might make politically painful concessions only to see the Americans balk. Colin Kahl, a political science professor who had been advising the Obama campaign, had been invited by Odierno to Baghdad to participate in a strategy review in October And he soon concluded that it was in the campaign's interest to support the negotiating efforts in Baghdad. The SOFA the Bush administration was working on was consistent with Obama's approach and if it failed now the new president would need to spend the first few months of his administration trying to resurrect the agreement -- or dealing with the chaos in Iraq that might result from a hasty American pullout. Kahl sent the Obama campaign an email urging that it avoid criticism of the agreement. "If we win the election we don't want to have our Iraq policy consumed by renegotiating the agreement in the early portion of 2009," he wrote.
Suddenly, the Constitution no longer mattered. But thought this became campaign strategy in October, please note, Barack (and Joe) would wait until after the election to strike the promise from the campaign site.
What is easiest for Barack is the road to take. Protecting the Constitution was the road not taken. Treaties go through Congress and Barack was a constitutional professor (he was no such thing, but the press did love to lie). Barack was going to restore the Constitution! Yet before he even won the election, he'd already decided to screw over the Constitution because heaven forbid that his administration might have to do some heavy lifting and negotiate a treaty if the Bush one fell apart in the Senate.
RECOMMENDED: Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Smack Talking Wuss"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Weapons, violence and cholera"
"Burn Pits"
"A diamond planet"
"PBS"
"revenge and spoilers"
"Cartoon and a great piece of writing"
"Joni"
"I was right about you know who"
"Adil E. Shamoo a Damn Liar"
"The Useless Blogger"
"Fire her"
"Before the White House blames Nina Blackwood"
"THIS JUST IN! NOT BECAUSE OF A VIDEO!"
Before the White House blames Nina Blackwood
YESTERDAY, A HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARING REVEALED THAT IT SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OBVIOUS THAT THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CONSULATE IN LIBYA THAT RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF 4 AMERICANS.
SO THE WHITE HOUSE EITHER LIED OR THEY REALLY ARE STUPID.
IN CASE IT'S THE LATTER, THE DEATH TODAY IN YEMEN OF THE SECURITY CHIEF FOR THE US EMBASSY THERE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS VIDEO OR THIS VIDEO OR THIS VIDEO OR EVEN THIS VIDEO.
IF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O AND THE WHITE HOUSE COULD PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, WHAT KILLED THE AMERICAN IN LIBYA WAS BULLETS FIRED BY AN ASSAILANT IN WHAT WAS PROBABLY AN ACT OF TERRORISM.
TOMORROW, WE'LL WORK WITH BARRY ON SHAPES AND SHOE LACES.
US House Rep Mike Kelly: And I'm kind of surprised. You know, I come from western Pennsylvania and people look at things in maybe a little different fashion. When I'm not down here in Washington DC amid all these brains and all the intelligence and you get back home and you talk to people, if I were to say to you, Lt Col Wood, "What does 9-11 mean to you?"
Lt Col Andrew Wood: This last 9-11?
US House Rep Mike Kelly: No, just 9-11. Like I would say "December 7th, what does December 7th --," 9-11?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: It's an attack on the United States of America.
US House Rep Mike Kelly: Mr. Nordstrom?
Eric Nordstrom: The same.
US House Rep Mike Kelly: Ms. Lamb?
Charlene R. Lamb: The same.
US House Rep Mike Kelly: Ambassador?
Patrick Kennedy: Absolutely, sir.
US House Rep Mike Kelly: Okay, so if you can all connect the dots right here, why in the heck did it take so long for all these highly briefed and intelligent people to figure out that it actually wasn't a 15-minute YouTube video? And that it actually was a 9-11 event? A terrorist attack? I don't know that this stuff about what's classified and not classified is getting confusing for me because I sat in a members only briefing and I -- Mr. Chairman, I ask you -- and this is on September the 20th with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and some other personnel -- is this something we're allowed to talk about or not allowed to talk about?
Chair Darrell Issa: Uh, if it was in a classified setting, the only thing that I would think that would be appropriate is any inconsistencies you've seen in testimonies today you could relate. Otherwise, the specifics, I couldn't judge it --
US House Rep Mike Kelly: Okay. Well it comes down to this: What caused this? And Ms. Lamb, I read through your testimony and it would be horrible to sit there and watch it, in real time, what was going on. And I read another account -- this is kind of strange -- that same night -- this is about the Ambassador. At 8:30 pm, the Ambassador said goodnight to a visiting Turkish diplomat. Outside the compound. And the streets are empty. But at 9:45 pm, noises, gunfire and an explosion were heard by the agents located in the TOC building and -- TOC in building B. It is absolutely preposterous to me that we would watch Ambassador Rice go out and say what happened five days later, that I would sit in a briefing and was [told], 'No, you have it all wrong. This is not a terrorist attack. This is a result of a 15-minute YouTube.' Now we are either in denial or, unfortunately, and I know some of the members are concerned because I got to tell you, it's very unfortunate that terrorists don't recognize that this is an election year. And they tend to just do what they want anytime they want to us. And when we have a weakened position around the world, and when we leave our embassies and our consulates as unprotected as we do and then we say, "You know what? This is terrible because this is 27 days before an election, why are we bringing it up now?" And I ask the same question, where the heck were we before 9-11, this 9-11? Why weren't we questioning it then? My goodness, 230 security incidents in Libya between June of 2011 and July of 2012. Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi. 2 of which at the US diplomatic compound and the scene of the September 11, 2012 attacks and we are still saying, 'I think it's the result of the video that was on YouTube'? And this is based on intelligence? Now, listen, I gotta' ask you Ambassador Kinney because you say you couldn't possibly have had a different idea about it than Secretary Rice did when she went before the nation on September 16th. I'm going to tell you, this thing smells. From every single angle. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And for you to come in here and say, "Well, it was based on some of the things I knew but I can't tell you all that I knew"? We've got four Americans dead. And I'm gonna' tell you. It's very upsetting for me to go back home and look at those people in the eye. People who don't do what we do hear with all the intelligence and all the briefings, just guys that go out and work every day and women that go out and work every day and they can come home and they can figure it out? But we're still trying to figure it out? And you watch it in real time? And the account wasn't there that night of the ambassador saying goodbye to a Turkish friend outside the gates and everything was quiet? But, my goodness, those terrorists or those Islamic extremists got a hold of that video and between 8:30 and 9:40 they decided to just go crazy? And Africa's on fire? And, Mr. Nordstrom, thank you for pointing out, as Mr. [Mitt] Romney did, that hope is not a strategy. And I feel sorry for you and Lt Col Wood to have to come here because it is you who are on the ground. You're not watching in some far away room in real time, you're people are there in real time. We've watched our colleagues be killed. And the question doesn't become "What is it that we didn't know?" It is because we have become lax. We have dumbed down. We have turned down the dial.
That was from this morning's House Oversight Committee hearing in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Libya in which Glen Doherty, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods were killed. Darrell Issa is the Committee Chair. Appearing before them were the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene R. Lamb, the State Dept's always less than truthful Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management), Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and the US military's Lt Col Andrew Wood.
For days after the attack on the consulate, the White House spun that it was due to a 'movie' that turned out to be a YouTube clip -- not before the compliant press was offering up least one individual who was yammering away that he'd seen the entire movie. Susan Rice went on the Sunday public affairs shows five days after the atack to continue to insist that the YouTube video caused a protest in Libya, the protesters got out of hand and that was what happened to the US Consulate in Libya and why four Americans were killed.
During that period, we got speeches about tolerance and bad YouTube and the White House tried to bully YouTube into taking the clip down. The lies never stopped. Nor did US President Barack Obama's campaigning -- which incorporated the lies. Immediatly after the attacks -- which are seen as an attack by al Qaeda -- Barack jetted off to Las Vegas for fundraisers and campaign rallies. It was in Las Vegas that he boasted, "A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead."
Guess when you're claiming to have finished off al Qaeda, the truth that it was a terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate doesn't fit with your spin or your campaign rhetoric. And that's how a lie takes hold. Barack would then rush off to a campaign event in Colorado where he would repeat the same boast, "And while a new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead."
Four days later in his weekly address (September 15th), he would note the attack, refer to the "angry mob" and declare:
This tragic attack takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries. I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths. We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion – including Islam.
Yet there is never any justification for violence. There is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is no excuse for attacks on our Embassies and Consulates. And so long as I am Commander-in-Chief, the United States will never tolerate efforts to harm our fellow Americans.
But it wasn't an "angry mob" and it wasn't a reaction of offense to a YouTube video that led to the attack. Barack was wording carefully the way Bush did. Because Barack knew he was selling a lie. So he uses inference to indicate that the attack was a mob of protesters, angered that a video had insulted their religion. The next day, September 16th, Susan Rice would appear on CBS Face The Nation:
BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?
SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.
SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
She'd go NBC's Meet The Press the same day and declare, "This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that -- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a -- spontenaeous reaction to a video, and it's not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Now, the United States has made very clear and the president has been very plain that our top priority is the protection of American personnel in our facilities and bringing to justice those who attacked our facilitiy in Benghazi."
Pressed by host David Gregory, Susan Rice stuck to the lie and insisted "our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of -- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course by the video." She'd go on other shows that day and stick to the cover story, the lie, that a YouTube video caused an angry group of protesters to attack the US Consulate in Libya, resulting in the deaths of four Americans. Pointing the finger at a man who was seen as a hate merchant (the one responsible for the video -- I say "seen as a hate merchant" because I haven't viewed the video and have no intention of every watching it) gave the White House a scapegoat. And they really needed one because security precautions were not taken.
So Jay Carney picked up the lie ("It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting," September 14th press briefing). But it's Carney's spinning on September 18th that really took it to another level:
Q Jay, I want to go back to Libya. On September 10th, you put out a press release saying that the President had a meeting with senior officials to figure out the security posture around the 9/11 anniversary. And in that press release you said that "steps were taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad. The President reiterated that departments and agencies must do everything possible to protect the American people both at home and abroad." So in retrospect, given the tragedy, did the administration drop the ball on what you promised on September 10th that you had improved security at these installations?
MR. CARNEY: They were numerous steps taken, as there have been every year on the anniversary of 9/11, and as there have been at different times on the calendar when it is judged by the experts that taking additional steps, security steps, is the right thing to do. As for specific measures taken at specific facilities, diplomatic facilities, I would refer you to the State Department.
Q Separate from the FBI investigation you mentioned to Mary a few moments ago, is there any sort of inquiry going on here at the White House among the President's national security team to get to the bottom of -- you told the American people on September 10th, "We've taken steps to protect Americans here at home and abroad." Obviously, with four Americans tragically being killed, the steps were not good enough. So is there an inquiry going on here to figure out what went wrong?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that you're conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation in terms of what --
Q Which happened on the anniversary.
MR. CARNEY: -- which are under investigation, and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.
It is certainly -- I would point you to what Ambassador Rice said and others have said about what we know thus far about the video and its influence on the protests that occurred in Cairo, in Benghazi and elsewhere. And all I can tell you is that steps are taken, both seen and unseen, in advance of and in preparation for times like the anniversary of 9/11 when it is judged that there might be greater threats. And those steps are based on the threat assessments that we have at the time. But I would refer you in terms of specific security for specific facilities to the State Department.
September 18th, two days later, and Carney was pointing to Susan Rice's b.s. to provide cover for an administration -- one in which the president was already accused of not receiving the daily intelligence briefing because he allegedly wanted to do other things. Susan Rice put out the story the White House wanted. Once the story was out there, the White House would repeatedly reference Rice.
Reporting on today's hearing, Jake Tapper and Mary Bruce (ABC News) note: Lt Col Wood testified he was removed from Libya in August "against his wishes and, he says, the wishes of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens." They note:
Wood said that when he heard of the attack on the Benghazi post on September 11, it was "instantly recognizable" that it had been a terrorist attack.
"Mainly because of my prior knowledge there," Wood said. "I almost expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time."
Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) emphasizes:
In a dramatic moment at the hearing, Issa released unclassified cables from March and July that the State Department had refused to release, detailing those requests.
One cable, written by then Amb. Gene Cretz, noted that three Mobile Security Detachments [MSD], consisting of 18 personnel, and the Site Security Team [SST], consisting of 16 personnel, were about to leave their temporary assignments. He said that the Libya mission needed both an extension of those forces and an increase in the number of permanent security officials in Libya.
We're going to note another exchange in today's hearing:
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Mr. Nordstrum, earlier in your testimony you were discussing your recollection of the conversation that you had had with two agents in the room regarding the denial of the extension of the SST. Now it was your understanding that you were not to request an extension at that point, is that correct?
Eric Nordstrom: That's correct.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And who was on the other end of the line that told you that?
Eric Nordstrom: I was on the telephone call with DS Lamb [DSLAM?].
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Was Ms. Lamb on the phone call with you?
Eric Nordstrom: That is DS Lamb.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Okay, sorry. So she did tell you that?
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Okay. Now she, just the other day in an interview with the Committee, indicated that on your July 9th cable to Washington requesting security personnel, you didn't formally request an SST extension, in fact, you just made a recommendation. Can you explain that there's a difference between recommendation and request?
Eric Nordstrom: In Post felt that that was a pretty clear request for resources.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Had you done it before with the idea that it was a request?
Eric Nordstrom: I believe it was also titled "Request For Continued TDY Staffing."
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And it was a denial of that extension?
Eric Nordstrom: Well actually, we never actually received a response.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Other than -- other than that phone conference that you were on?
Eric Nordstrom: Correct. We never received a response to that cable.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And as a result of that phone conference where you were denied, did you seek any further effort to follow up or make a re-request?
Eric Nordstrom: I believe actually, to clarify, the telephone call was prior to sending in the cable. What we decided since we continued to get resistance, instead of specifically asking for SST or MSD or whatever, we just said, 'You know what, give us the thirteen bodies, where ever they come from.' And that's the way in which we crafted the cable.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Now Ms. Lamb, you testified in an interview with this Committee that you trusted your RSOs in the field such as Mr. Nordstrom. Now how do you square that statement with you telling Mr. Nordstrom that you would not support an extension of the SST?
Charlene Lamb: The cable that he sent in indicated that any of the categories --
US House Rep Dennis Ross: But before the cable was the phone conversation.
Charlene Lamb: That's -- that's correct.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And you wouldn't support his request or recommendation at that time.
Charlene Lamb: Because we had Department of State diplomatic security assets that could do the same functions of the remaining --
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And that was explained to him as well?
Charlene Lamb: Yes, sir.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: Now, Lt Col Wood, I understand that you were the senior officer of the SST team. Is that correct?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: That's correct, sir.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And do you have any reason to believe that if you had to go up your chain of command at AFRICOM for a request from the State Dept that they extend the tour of duty of an SST, that your chain of command would not grant that?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Absolutely Gen [Carter F.] Ham was fully supportive of extending the SST as long as they felt they needed them.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: So the resources were available for the SST?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Absolutely.
US House Rep Dennis Ross: And had they been there, they would have made a difference, would they not?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: They made a difference every day they were there, when I was there, sir. They were a deterrent effect.
"Now they take away Tareq's salary?"
"Violating the Hatch Act is a crime"
"2 disgrace in the Committee hearing"
"We need some honesty"
"Another from the Cult of St. Barack"
"The White House's Jimmy Carter moment"
"Shameful PBS"
"What we learned at today's hearing"
"The albino named Mika"
"Never would have thought"
"The White House is that dumb?"
"The terrorist attack"
"Focus on driving your own country's elections"
"THIS JUST IN! THEIR OBESSIONS ARE UNHEALTHY!"
Focus on driving your own country's elections
ALREADY THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION APPEARS TO BE OVERFLOWING WITH FOREIGN CAMPAIGN DONATIONS -- SUCH DONATIONS WOULD BE ILLEGAL. BUT IT GETS WORSE.
APPARENTLY HAILING FROM PATHETIC COUNTRIES, OLIVER BURKEMAN AND FAILED WRITER BUT CONSORT OF FRENCH PRESIDENT BERNARD-HENRI LEVY REFUSE TO FOCUS ON THEIR OWN RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES BUT INSTEAD OBSESSS OVER A U.S. ELECTION AS THEY EXPRESS THEIR LOVE FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.
THESE ARE NOT REPORTERS, THESE ARE FOREIGNERS ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION AND THEY NEED TO BUTT THE HELL OUT.
IF THEY'RE SO ASHAMED OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES -- ENGLAND AND FRANCE -- THERE'S A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP IN THE U.S. AND THEY SHOULD EXPLORE IT. BUT AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN FOREIGNERS, THEY NEED FOCUS ON THEIR OWN ELECTIONS AND STOP TRYING TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.
Yesterday we noted Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate, delivered a foreign relations speech. Today US President Barack Obama did. If you're a dope -- like Michael A. Memoli of the Los Angeles Times -- you just type it up. I'm sorry, is it only Republicans that have to be fact checked? Barack's been president for nearly four years, at what point does he stop being coddled?
And if you can figure out the lunatic ravings of his campaign site, more power to you. I couldn't. Where's the speech? I called a friend with the campaign and he told me, "Why it's at the White House."
At the White House. How many times is this adminitsration going to break the Hatch Act?
Go to the White House's Speeches and Remarks page and you'll find the following:
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- San Francisco, CA
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
Remarks by the President at the Dedication of the Cesar Chavez National Monument, Keene, CA
Weekly Address: Congress Should Keep America Moving Forward
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Cleveland, OH
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Fairfax, VA
Remarks by the President at Campaign Event in Madison, WI
The White House is not a campaign site. I went over the legalities with Team Barack when they had their Twitter Feed issues (they were breaking the Hatch Act, they quickly changed their policies to be in compliance with the Hatch Act). I don't feel like being nice today. Team Barack has a ton of lawyers, at least one of them should know the damn law. Campaign event speeches belong at the campaign website. They are not official White House business. They cannot be posted at the White House. This is no different than what got Al Gore in trouble -- the phone calls -- only now we're talking online.
If you're not grasping it, White House staff posts to the White House web. Right away, you've got a Hatch Act issue if White House staff is posting campaign event material to the White House website. I cannot believe how stupid Team Barack is. And I'll put my hand on the Bible and say "stupid" and not "criminal." It took two hours to explain the basics of how their Twitter feed was in violation of the Hatch Act. I don't have that kind of time, especially for a candidate I'm not campaigning for, donating to, or voting for. I expect the President of the United States to comply with the law. That is not an outlandish expectation. If Team Obama's attorneys are this stupid, that not only suggests the need for new attorneys, it goes to the man they're working for.
White House staff has now posted campaign event material to a government website. Forget that it's the White House, for a moment, to a government website. They are not in compliance with the Hatch Act and if we grown ups in the press -- which we so obviously do not (excepting the few like Jake Tapper) -- they'd be running with this story. We'd have headlines "Potential Hatch Act Violation by White House" or "Another Potential Hatch Act Violation by White House." But we have meek little general studies majors who never learned one damn thing about one damn thing and we're all victimized by their stupidity.
And today's speech where he remembers Iraq all the sudden? It's got be the one damn speech they didn't break the Hatch Act by posting.
We can't get the text of the speech (supposedly it'll be faxed to me shortly, I don't have the time to wait) so we have to depend upon the accuracy of a dunce, a village idiot, by the name of Michael Memoli. Fate has saved us. The fax just came in.
Ohio State University in Columbus was where Barack spoke this evening.
On Iraq:
I want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our schools all across America. And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq. I disagree. I think bringing out troops home to their families was the right thing to do. If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there. In a speech yesterday, he doubled down on that belief. He said ending that war was a mistake. After nine years of war, more than $1 trillion in spending, extraordinary sacrficies by our men and women in uniform and their families, he said we should still have troops on the ground in Iraq. Ohio, you can't turn a page on the failed policies of the past if you're promising to repeat them. We cannot afford to go back to a foreign policy that gets us into wars with no plan to end them.
That's Barack on Iraq in Ohio today. It was not a major foreign policy speech. It was actually very disappointing to read because there was no effort to say much of anything. Did Barack think his college audience couldn't handle much more than simplistic statements. I'm not talking him presenting a new map for foreign relations, I'm talking about some uplifting phrases. This is the dullest speech in the world. Maybe attorneys aren't Team Obama's only problem?
Reading Michael A. Memoli's nonsense, it becomes clear that Barack can say whatever he wants and will not be fact checked. So let's do the work that the Los Angeles Times should have expected Memoli to do.
Barack: I want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our schools all across America.
I would applaud you but you stated that repeatedly in your campaign speeches in 2008 -- and in your victory speech on election night (link is NPR, text and audio). So you had four years and the US roads and bridges remain in need of repair. You refused to do a public works project, the way FDR did to provide jobs, but we're supposed to believe you that this time you really, really mean it.
Barack: And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq.
Barack keeps repeating that lie. FactCheck.org from September 7, 2012:
Making the case that Romney lacks foreign policy chops, Obama twisted Romney's words, claiming, "My opponent said it was 'tragic' to end the war in Iraq."
But that's not quite what Romney said. He was speaking of the speed with which Obama was withdrawing troops, not to ending the war in general.
During a veterans roundtable in South Carolina on Nov. 11, 2011, Romney criticized Obama's plan to remove troops from Iraq by the end of that year. Here's the fuller context of his comments, as reported by the New York Times:
Romney, Nov. 11, 2011: It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it's more than unfortunate, I think it's tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there.
A month earlier, when Obama formally announced the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops from Iraq by year's end, Romney released a similar statement:
Romney, Oct. 21, 2011: President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.
In December, Romney argued that Obama "has pulled our troops out in a precipitous way" and that he ought to have left a residual force of "10-, 20-, 30-thousand personnel there to help transition to the Iraqi's own military capabilities."
Criticizing the "precipitous" pace of withdrawal and the president's failure to leave a residual force in Iraq is a far cry from calling the end of the war in Iraq "tragic."
"Obama twisted Romney's words" -- yes and continues to do so after being called out on it which makes it a lie.
Barack: I disagree. I think bringing out troops home to their families was the right thing to do.
If you had actually done that, Barack. I could probably vote in this presidential election and could vote for you. If you had done that, if you had brought the troops home from Iraq. I probably could ignore your assaults on whistle blowers, find some way to justify your persecution of Bradley Manning and other things. Because Iraq really matters to me. So I could probably find a way to lie to myself, write you a big check, go out and campaign for you and vote for you. I might hold my nose, but I probably could have if you'd just done that.
But you didn't bring US troops home. Some of them, over 15,000, you moved across the Iraqi border into Kuwait. And there's no plans to bring that number down to zero. In fact, June 19, 2012, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council."
Kuwait is especially keen to maintain a significant U.S. military presence. In fact, the Kuwaiti public perception of the United States is more positive than any other Gulf country, dating back to the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait paid over $16 billion to compensate coalition efforts for costs incurred during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and $350 million for Operation Southern Watch. In 2004, the Bush Administration designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally.
* U.S. Military Presence: A U.S.-Kuwaiti defense agreement signed in 1991 and extended in 2001 provides a framework that guards the legal rights of American troops and promotes military cooperation. When U.S. troops departed Iraq at the end of 2011, Kuwait welcomed a more enduring American footprint. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, but the number is likely to decrease to 13,500. Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Field, and Camp Buehring offer the United States major staging hubs, training rages, and logistical support for regional operations. U.S. forces also operate Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile defense.
The report goes on to recommend that the troops stay there for years. (Individuals would rotate out but approximately 13,000 US troops would be stationed in Kuwait for years.)
In addition, Special Ops remained in Iraq. They never left. 'Trainers' remained in Iraq (also US military). And not only did Special Ops remain but Barack just sent more Special Ops into Iraq. Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th, "At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Barack: If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there.
Barack, "these troops" still are there. And if Barack had gotten his way, even more would be there. As Yaroslav Trofimov and Nathan Hodge (Wall St. Journal) remind today, "In Iraq, Washington's ability to influence the government in Baghdad was greatly diminished by December's pullout of American forces, ordered by President Barack Obama after Baghdad refused to accept the U.S. demand that remaining U.S. troops be immune from Iraqi jurisdiction." I would love to hear Senator John McCain respond to this speech by Barack. In November of last year, we defended Barack here from McCain's charge that Barack was misleading (lying) and intended to tank negotiations between the US and Iraq for US troops to remain in Iraq in large numbers. And we even brought it up in the 2011 year-in-review:
Another reason offered for the refusal by the Iraqis to extend the SOFA or come to a new agreement came from US Senator John McCain. McAin's hypothesis is that Barack purposely tanked the talks (see the November 15th Iraq snapshot and Kat's report on the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing). Were that true (I personally don't buy that proposal), then the administration should be paraded before Congress due to the fact that, when the country was in three overseas wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya), plus drone attacks of Pakistan and in an ever increasing economic mess, for Barack to have wasted some of the administration's most valuable players on negotiations that were intended to fail would be criminal negligence. Far more likely is that, as with his attempts to land the 2016 Olympics (for Chicago) which included traveling all the way to Denmark only to see the Committee rebuff him and select Rio instead. Barack's embarrassing failure was lampooned in Isaiah's 2009 "Dream Team Take Two" which found the players (Barack, Michelle, Oprah and Valerie Jarrett) attempting to bring the Mary Kay Convention to Chicago.
I think McCain would look at that single sentence ("If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there.") and say that Barack can't have it both ways -- either he would have kept troops there but couldn't get a treaty passed or else he intentionally tanked a treaty because he didn't want troops there.
In addition, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions." Troops would still be there? But it's the White House right now that's negotiating to send more troops back into Iraq.
"Iraq today: Continued violence, cholera, etc."
"Nouri gets closer to Russia and gets a dig in at t..."
"Barack refuses to honor Big Bird's request"
"Who I may vote for"
"Joseph Kishore and WSWS won't tell the truth"
"revenge and divorce"
"The Libya story/scandal"
"The liars get exposed (Benghazi-gate)"
"She lost me"
"Lying about Libya for re-election"
"Fringe, the polls, Libya"
"THIS JUST IN! GAIL COLLINS EXPLAINED!"
"Answer: Because Gail Collins is butt ugly"
Answer: Because Gail Collins is butt ugly

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Create a paper focusing on the first Thanksgiving and how the union between one of the Native American tribes and the settlers that limits rock was only solidified after the settlers used their guns to kill a competing drive.
Create a paper focusing on how much of the natural trees in America were cut down to build up the current British naval shipyard.
Discuss the influence of television on presidential debates and elections, specifically focusing on how people who watched the debate between Nixon and JFK thought that JFK was the clear winner and yet people who listened to it on the radio thought that Nixon was the clear winner.
You can craft a paper focusing on the use of daily newspapers in the original colonies and in Boston in particular. Focus on how this was used to transport messages to colonial spies among the British troops, and how the culture of reading greatly influenced the growth of democracy.
Craft a paper that focuses on the initial Violence instigated by a group of British soldiers who attacked unarmed civilians on the street in Boston, the news of which spread throughout the 13 colonies before it had reached Britain, and ignited the American Revolution.
Craft of paper that discusses the treacherous journey over the appellation Mountains to get to the west and what the survival rate was. Focus on how passing one grave marker every mile influenced the strength and fortitude of America's ancestors.
Craft a paper that focuses on the current value of the amount of teeth lost during the Boston tea party and how this led to great financial devastation to the British.
Review the decision to drop the atomic bomb, and why the president at the time thought he would be mocked more if he chose not to use the power he had compared to using it to wipe out more people in a single blow that history had seen to date.
Write a paper about the most influential president, whose policies remain among the most policies a president has enacted that have not been overturned and today remain active including the WIC program and preschool education program.
Write about the building of industrial highway system across America and the benefits of brought to the economy.


2016 Hyundai Santa Fe is a new midsize crossover SUV that car enthusiasts should look at when looking for the best ways to improve your style and ride. This cross comes with a new improved design compared to other models that the market already offer to buyers. However, most people began to speculate on the particular characteristics of those looking to buy after its release on the market. 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe will have a higher speed compared to other models that the market offers. For example, the car will be able to accelerate from zero to 50 miles in just 8.99 seconds, which is better compared to other models on the market.
The new 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe comes with special features that should be among the modern cars that the market will provide for people in need. The bumpers have new modern look that it will be the best car when looking for something new. LED lights offer an innovative development vehicle for the vehicle. They will integrate turn signals in the mirrors into a unique design.
The colors, the new Hyundai Santa Fe will come 2,016 in a variety of colors to satisfy the taste of different customers who are willing to buy after its release on the market. It will be quite large compared to other models that were previously on the market. The leather seats are arranged in three rows and adjustable at the same time flexible. This should also provide additional space to make it look amazing. There will be other additional new hi-tech features such as single software of the track as well as mobile applications. With the new features, it will be the next car for those who like stylish SUV.
The car will have a better engine and advance over existing models on the market. It will have a 2.5 L turbocharged 4-cylinder with around 268 hp and another 2.8 L four-cylinder with 210 hp engine with a 3.3L V6 with direct injection that produces 290 horsepower. All engines will use another box 6 speeds given. This engine, it will be a powerful car that has the ability to move faster for people looking for a sporty SUV with style and class. The engine 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe also give him a higher acceleration capability for people looking for options in the market.
For people who would buy this crossover SUV through beautifully designed, it would be ready for sale in June 2016 after its launch. On the price, it will range from 26 to 31 $ 800 $ 250. The price will be for people who will buy immediately after its release on the market for sale.
In conclusion, if you have information on 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe SUV, you should remember that this should give you the facts about what you should expect after its launch for customers in the market for sale.


This week at the G.A., the annual gathering of Jewish federations, Elie Wiesel and Natan Sharansky sat together to reminisce about what may have been the most significant and successful revolution in the Jewish world of the past half century, yet one no one ever talks about.
The struggle to free Soviet Jewry, a 25 year battle, not only succeeded in tearing down barriers to immigration and Jewish identity, it helped to bring down the iron curtain. It did so bloodlessly, and it galvanized the American Jewish community as it had never been galvanized before and hasn't since. It enabled Jews to project pride and political clout in a manner that presaged AIPAC, despite being opposed or only tacitly endorsed by much of the Jewish establishment. In fact, it was primarily student led, or as Sharansky's KGB captors scoffed "A bunch of students and housewives." Yet somehow, these students helped to push an agenda that promoted human rights for all people and, through the Jackson-Vanik amendment, became a prime instrument of U.S. policy to pressure the Soviet Union.
Ironically, Jackson-Vanik is slated to be rescinded by Congress this week (see an interesting take on this from the from the Moscow Times).
Twenty five years ago, on December 6, 1987, 250,000 Jews marched on Washington to demand freedom for Soviet Jewry. The numbers exceeded everyone's expectations, and coming as it did on the eve of a Reagan - Gorbachev summit, historians now know that it made a huge difference in accelerating the process of liberation. For American Jews, it was a cathartic do-over, a chance to redeem ourselves from the perception that we had not done enough to help our brothers and sisters during the Shoah. It was a huge moment. For those of us who were there, it was unforgettable. It was, for me, the first major community event I attended after moving to Stamford and it cemented relationships with other community leaders. See my photo essay below. maybe you'll recognize some of the people, including Natan Sharansky (newly freed), Sen. Lautenberg, Bob Dole and many from our Stamford group.
See video of the Sharansky – Wiesel G.A. appearance here.
AND SAVE THE DATE OF SHABBAT MORNING, DECEMBER 8, WHEN, IN HONOR OF THIS 25TH ANNIVERSARY, WE WILL BE HOSTING GAL BECKERMAN, opinion editor at The Forward AND AUTHOR OF "When They Come for Us, We'll be Gone,"- The riveting story, never before told, of the three-decade struggle that became a global cause.
See my article on the event from the Stamford Advocate in Dec. 1987.
See also the photo essay below, as we recall that historic March on Washington of December 6, 1987. Click on photos to enlarge.
And with Hanukkah coming, read Natan Sharansky's description of Hanukkah in the Gulag.