Obama Lied, Babies Died

Let’s approach this the way liberals approached former President George W. Bush and the Iraq War. Bush said Saddam Hussein had WMD’s and therefore the civilized world owed it to itself to take him out. We found no WMD’s. Therefore the left felt justified chanting “Bush lied, people died.”

On April 5, 2017, Politifact, the left-leaning, Pulitzer Prize-winning (it’s all over their masthead) publisher of the trademarked Truth-O-Meter™, pulled their July 20, 2014 fact-check “Kerry: We got ‘100 percent’ of chemical weapons out of Syria.”

Yeah, oops.

“What he faces, maybe, is a problem with a bunch of critics who want to jump to conclusions without looking at the facts,” Kerry said.

Kerry then offered a list of the administration’s achievements. He touted gains in securing Chinese help to restrain North Korea, a ceasefire in South Sudan, the interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program and progress on the formation of a new government in Iraq.

Syria also made the secretary’s list.

“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” Kerry said.

In this fact-check, we decided to take a closer look at that claim about Syria. That country’s civil war dominated the foreign policy debate last summer and the use of shells loaded with chemical agents galvanized the international response. With key help from Russia, Syria agreed to rid itself of all chemical weapons by the end of June 2014.

PolitiOops rated Kerry’s claim as “Mostly True.” And now we know it was 100 percent Lie.

A piece published Sunday in The Blaze took the “Oops” several rungs deeper, looking at inconsistencies published in the American Interest, along with former Obama bureaucrats cheering Trump’s action, saying “It was high time.”

“This shows the moral depravity of the last administration,” said one former Obama administration official. “I am stunned.”

Many of us are pretty darned happy about this, ” said a second former administration official. “This is the action that many of us were hoping for years ago. Our hope though is that this was not an act in isolation, but a clear signal of the limits of our tolerance, and the restart of meaningful, actionable diplomacy to end Assad’s tenure in Syria and bring about a peaceful political transition.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster sort of spilled the beans on Obama’s lie in remarks published Friday from a presser with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

MCMASTER: And the one thing that I will tell you though, there was an effort to minimize – to minimize risk to third-country nationals at that airport – I think you read Russians from that – but that – and we took great pains to try to avoid that. Of course, in any kind of military operation, there are no guarantees. And then there were also measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas, so that that would not be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians or anyone else.

Umm…that does seem to imply that the U.S. government knew that Syria had storage facilities for sarin gas. I don’t believe that knowledge was obtained in the 72-hour period between President Trump’s epiphany of hearing about babies dying and the missiles flying. Nobody, including, apparently PolitiOops PolitiFact, is naïve enough to believe that.

“We don’t know key details about the reported chemical attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, but it raises two clear possibilities: Either Syria never fully complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses,” PolitiFact wrote last week.

“One way or another, subsequent events have proved Kerry wrong,” they conceded.

In other words, Syria never intended to rid itself of chemical weapons. Russia never bothered (or likely, never intended) to check to see that it did. And Kerry, Obama and their crew at State knew all of this, yet continued to sell the “no chemical weapons” story for nearly three years. The press never bothered to contradict the Obama administration’s tall tale, despite evidence they were lying.

There is a sense of relief and justice to those innocent children suffered terrible death in Khan Shaikhun.” said Dr. Zaher Sahloul of the Syrian American Medical Society, who spoke last summer before the United Nations about the plight of Syrian parents and children under siege in Aleppo. Sahloul had praised Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power for being the “voice of the voiceless” and lobbied her administration colleagues for greater humanitarian intervention on behalf of Aleppo’s children. “The question is how come it took one chemical attack to change the heart of President Trump and move him to military action, while President Obama was so stone-hearted and resistant to the horrible images of tens of thousands of innocent victims? I hope that this attack will open the door to the end of the genocide in Syria and force political transition in Syria.”

It’s unlikely that this one event and response will change American policy to move regime change in Syria to the top of the list. But it does show exactly how disingenuous Obama and his gang were in preaching peace, peace and unlimited immigration while ignoring the evil ravages of war.

In the left’s own language, “Obama lied, babies died” is more than justified.

Trump Stops Kerry Palestinian Cowardice, Freezes $221 Million Payment

The biggest failure in American foreign policy over the last eight years is summed up in one word: cowardice. In the last hours before President Trump started his term, outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry defied Congress’ wishes and released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority. Then he turned out the lights and went home without facing consequences. Because he’s a coward.

It turns out, the Palestinians are upset that they haven’t gotten the money yet, and they’re probably not going to see it for a while, if at all. From the Times of Israel:

US officials conveyed to PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah on Tuesday that the funds were not expected to be handed over in the immediate future, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The State Department is reviewing the payment, and “might make adjustments to ensure it comports with the Trump administration’s priorities.” This is bureaucrat-speak for “Trump told us to hold the money and figure out the reasons later.”

Congress had initially approved the Palestinian funding in budget years 2015 and 2016, but at least two GOP lawmakers — Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger of Texas, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee — had placed holds on it over moves the Palestinian Authority had taken to seek membership in international organizations. Congressional holds are generally respected by the executive branch but are not legally binding after funds have been allocated.

John Kerry defiantly hoisted his middle finger at Congress and then slammed the door on his way out. Trump didn’t let him get away with it.

Good. And for more reasons than the PA doesn’t deserve one penny, which it tends to use for things like paying reward money to suicide killers’ families and naming streets after terrorists. It’s good because no administration should be able to hide behind acts of poltroonery and bad faith like Obama did.

Unfortunately, Trump can’t reverse Chelsea Manning’s pardon, or the release of GITMO prisoners back to their terror groups (but he can drone strike them). But it’s only right and fitting that the State Department review this payment, and if possible, see that the PA doesn’t get one dollar.

Kerry To Trump: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

In an interview on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry commented that it was “inappropriate for a president-elect of the United States to be stepping into the politics of other countries in a quite direct manner,” referring to President-elect Trump’s comments published in an interview with the German newspaper Bild.

Kerry criticized Trump for his assertion that the German government had made a mistake in admitting thousands of “illegals” into their country.  Trump was referring to the refugees from Syria who have been pouring into Germany and causing social and political upheaval.

Kerry suggested that Trump should not have commented on German policies, and then proceeded to do the same, noting that he thought the German government showed “great courage” in accepting the Syrian refugees.

Kerry was silent on past Obama-administration actions in Syria that he championed as Secretary-of-State and which have led to the current refugee crisis.

John Kerry Admits the US Saw ISIS Growing and Chose to Do Nothing

CNN originally had up some audio that had been leaked of John Kerry talking about using force in Syria.

But there was part of the audio that was not made public. The entire audio has subsequently been taken down by CNN. The part that was never made public, however, has been leaked. In it, John Kerry admits that the United States saw ISIS growing, which he referred to as Daesh. But instead of doing anything about it, Kerry says the Obama Administration calculated that its growth would lead the Assad regime in Syria to the negotiating table.

Instead, Kerry says, Assad turned to Vladimir Putin for help. Now, I have to tell you, anyone with half a brain would have realized the Assad regime would turn to Russia. The Assad family has always turned to Moscow for help. It is insane that our government was surprised by that. It is also highly irresponsible.

British Government Smacks Down John Kerry Over His Israel Speech

Democrats have been pointing out that the British voted for the UN resolution about Israeli settlements as proof that our allies were okay with it. They’d prefer you not look at the pretty significant smackdown of John Kerry by the British government.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said it was inappropriate of Mr Kerry, America’s top diplomat, to attack the make-up of the democratically-elected Israeli government – a key ally of both the US and Britain.

Downing Street also rebuked Mr Kerry for focusing on the single issue of Israeli settlements and not the whole conflict.

Intervening in the increasingly hostile international dispute today, a spokesman for the British Prime Minister said: ‘We do not… believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.

‘And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically-elected government of an ally.’

‘The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.’

Democrats and Republicans alike in Washington have rebuked Kerry for saying Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, but not both. Now the British are going after him too.

And in all honesty, how is that not racist? Would Kerry ever say a country can be all Arab or democratic, but not both? Would he? Would he say a country can either be all Muslim or democratic, but not both? Of course he would not.

Good on the British for calling out the pompous jackass.

Kerry’s Israel Speech The Perfect Ending to Obama’s Dangerous Hubris

I feel like the first responder at a port-a-potty explosion. I don’t even know where to begin, but I do know everything is covered in crap.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s final speech was so pathetic, inadequate, and incompatible with the reality of the Israel-Palestinian situation that I’d be hard-pressed to find a more unrealistic fig-leaf to cover for the unmasking of President Obama’s hatred of Israel as the Jewish state.

In it, Kerry rewrote history, misstated the nature of the conflict, the goals of the parties, and the interests of the United States. He exhibited a moral condescension and “know-better” haughtiness rarely seen except by suit-wearing poltroons who denigrated their own military comrades during a shooting war. Kerry’s existence is a personal debunking of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest,” having risen to high position with scarcely more cognitive ability than a chimpanzee wearing a blue tie and wingtips.

The only silver linings here are that in just a few weeks, Kerry is going away, hopefully forever, to where former failed secretaries of state go to write their turgid memoirs; and that nobody has listened seriously to him since February 1, 2013.

That being said, let me get out the shovel and start digging in to the excrement of this horrendous speech.

I’m right and you’re stupid

The basic theme here is that the United States knows what’s best for Israel better than Israel, a democratic state with free elections, knows for itself. Having spent eight years undermining Benjamin Netanyahu–who assumed office a mere two months after Obama–the president finally realized that his Israeli nemesis will remain in office after he himself departs. In Obama’s world, Netanyahu should not be in office, because he doesn’t agree with Obama, who is (in his world) always right.

Therefore, the disgusting abstention and active urging of the UN Security Council to bash Israel was necessary because Obama is right and the Israeli citizens who elected Netanyahu are stupid. It’s bigoted condescension, and that’s being kind. Kerry said “friendships require mutual respect.” If he believed that, he’d respect Israel’s right to self-determination, and its status as a nation able to negotiate its own treaties and protect its own national interests.

Gaslighting the law

Kerry cited every UN resolution that has no legal effect or was never ratified as proof that Israel should shrink behind pre-1967 borders, which are indefensible. Resolution 181, the Partition Plan, was not approved in 1947 because the Arab League walked out rather than accept a Jewish state under any conditions.

Israel’s legal right to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is established by international treaty, and recognized under the UN’s own charter Article 80. Read Daniel Horowitz’s excellent legal analysis of Israel’s right to build homes and settlements.

The only binding resolution of international law, a resolution which has never been countermanded to this very day, is the July 1922 Mandate for Palestine. Adopted by the League of Nations, that resolution recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” It called for the creation of a Jewish national homeland anywhere west of the Jordan River.

And:

The Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations was the last legally binding document delineating regional borders. In Article 5 of the Mandate it explicitly states “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”

Kerry resorted to gaslighting to get around this inconvenient fact. He cited the history of the UN bashing Israel as justification for bashing Israel in the UN. He specifically advanced Obama’s vision of a two-state solution, which both Israel and the Palestinian leaders have rejected (albeit for different reasons), as the only solution available to the parties.

Rewriting history

He kept using the word “occupation,” and “military law.” It’s Israel’s right to impose its own civilian law on its own citizens living within legally established borders sovereignly controlled by Israel. Kerry was referring to the redesignation of about 15,000 acres of “Area C1” land to Israeli civil control as state-owned land. Again, this isn’t illegal, and was done to protect all the citizens of Israel who live and work (including Palestinians) in this land.

But Kerry rewrote history, claiming the settlements are ideologically-driven because some Israelis have grown weary of constantly trading land for peace and reaping no peace. He cited how Israel has demolished shanties and shacks erected by Palestinian squatters, but missed the August 2005 unilateral and forced withdrawal of Israelis from northern Gaza. The shameful images of army troops evicting citizens from their homes, so that Palestinians could burn them and smash the businesses left there are still indelibly imprinted on Israel’s national memory.

And what did they get for that? Rockets, tunnels, kidnappings, and Hamas.

Kerry called England and France Israel’s friends, and implied that Jews and Muslims can coexist under Islamic law in peace. Tell that to the Jews of Paris, or the Jews who are harassed in England and fearful of their future in Europe.

Look at every Arab country and Islamic-controlled state that had thriving Jewish populations in the last 50 years. Where have the Jews gone? Does anyone really believe that in a two-state solution, a single Jew would be permitted to live under the Palestinian government? In September, Netanyahu called it what it is: ethnic cleansing. He was roundly criticized by terror apologists for it, but he was right.

Kerry claimed that Israel was to blame for the failed Oslo accords and other peace initiatives. If memory serves, it was Arafat who walked away from Clinton’s peace plan, preferring to provoke an intifada than to accept a two-state peace plan. The PA and its progenitor the PLO have never accepted peace with a Jewish neighbor.

Yet Kerry made the shocking statement that “Israel can be either Jewish or democratic, but not both,” throwing out the demographic argument that Palestinians would take over the Jewish state. That hasn’t happened with Israel’s significant Arab citizen population though. He implied that if the PA folded, that Israel couldn’t handle the civil administration, security and basic needs of the Palestinian population. To be blunt, that’s historically inaccurate, and it’s a crock of crap.

History paints a very different picture from the one Kerry was selling, but who cares about history when you’re pathologically convinced you’re always right?

Rainbow unicorns for everyone

Finally getting to the point (even Kerry couldn’t keep a straight face or follow the teleprompter reading all these lies), the secretary outlined a six-point plan for peace that’s straight out of fiction.

The first two points cite UN Resolutions 252 and 181 respectively. These resolutions confine Israel to pre-1967 borders, where Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank. Essentially he called on Israel to trade land it purchased with blood and trade it for a broken promise of peace once again, without the Palestinians having made a single concession.

No sane person in Israel, even the dovish ones there who oppose building settlements, would fall for this catastrophic course of action. Israel cannot meets its security needs if 252 were adhered to. And this isn’t like President-elect Trump’s “build a wall” issue (the Israelis have built a wall, and it works). It’s an existential issue–without land to fight an invading army, Israel cannot defend itself from destruction.

The latest UN Security Council Resolution 2334 deplores Israel for building on land they would unilaterally take away by force at some future time. This is in line with Israel’s enemies’ plan to isolate Israel, then coalesce by treaty a coalition to militarily intervene. Obama and Kerry simply advanced those plans to the next level in a supreme act of hubris.

The third point is laughably for Israel to provide compensation to two million Palestinian refugees. As if that money would ever make it into Palestinian families’ hands–it would be pilfered and used for weapons, terrorism, and rewarding families of suicide killers long before anyone was “compensated.”

The Palestinians in refugee camps, who are stuck in a stateless and permanent status of peasantry while others around them live in first-world conditions, were made that way by the Arab states who attacked in 1948 and refused to repatriate the families they told to leave Israel while the war continued. The vast majority of them settled in Israel in the few decades before 1948 when Arab leaders tried to match Jewish immigration.

How would Israel expect to compensate these people? It’s insane to even consider this until there’s a reasonable partner for peace.

Point four is for Israel to give up its “eternal and undivided” capital of Jerusalem. That would violate Israel’s Basic Law (their constitution). So Israel must repeal part of its Basic Law in return for nothing, while the Muslims get the same exclusive access and control of their holy sites that they have now. Sounds reasonable if you know nothing about history, the Bible, the Jews, and why Israel’s motto is “never again.” It’s fantasy.

Fifth, provide security for Israel and a non-militarized Palestinian state within known borders. Isn’t this the whole point of negotiations? Why should the U.S. determine those borders? Who are we to do this? This isn’t the end of World War II the U.S. rather arbitrarily picked the 38th parallel to demarcate North Korea from South Korea. It’s a supreme act of American interference to bully Israel into negotiating against their own self-determined national interests.

Oh, and also, it’s rainbow unicorns, because this isn’t going to happen anytime soon until the cultural and religious issues are worked out.

Point six, immanentize the eschaton. Peace, love, and M&M’s for everyone as we approach peaceful coexistence and ending the conflict. For the Palestinians, the conflict will end when there are no Jews left in the Levant. Is that what Kerry wanted? Otherwise, it’s nothing more than Pollyannish wish-casting.

Israel already has the fruits

Kerry listed the fruits of this peace, so Israel could be a regional economic powerhouse, and enjoy cooperation with key Arab states. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but Israel is already a regional economic powerhouse, and already enjoys (sometimes strained) cooperation with Egypt and Jordan. Israel even offers covert humanitarian assistance in the Syrian war, its medical personnel operating at great personal risk to treat wounded.

Israel’s hospitals treat Palestinian sick children, wounded terrorists, and Palestinian politicians with heart conditions. The only fruit Israel would love to have is to knock down their walls, dismantle their checkpoints, and put down their M-16s. To do that requires the Palestinians to want peace, and right now they don’t.

Kerry and Obama have dangerously and willfully ignored reality for eight years, and now at the end of it, they lash out at the people who have to live with their legacy of stupid. No speech could have outlined the ignorant and prideful arrogance of the Obama administration better than Kerry’s swan song.

Now be gone with you.

 

The Moral Cowardice of Barack Obama and John Kerry

For eight years, Barack Obama has given lip service to our special relationship with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and our long time ally. During that time, the United States has opposed anti-Israel efforts in the United Nations, standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel. But with less than four weeks before he leaves office, Barack Obama finally worked with Israel’s enemies to pass a United Nations resolution hostile to Israel.

This is an act of moral cowardice and immaturity the likes of which Barack Obama thinks only Donald Trump is capable of.

Nothing has changed in our relationship with Israel in the past several years. Obama has been increasingly hostile toward Israeli interests, but he has maintained a facade of friendship. Nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is how much longer Barack Obama has in office and the fact that voters will never again see him on a ballot.

Today, with less than three weeks to go before they depart, John Kerry intends to give a speech offering a “comprehensive vision” on Middle East peace. He is allegedly expected to recognize a Palestinian state — something no American administration, including this one, has done.

Doing so three weeks before departing office does nothing but create headaches for an incoming administration by an outgoing administration too cowardly to do this before now.

It is not leadership to wait till you have one foot out the door to be bold. It is reckless cowardice and a descent into stereotype of Trumpism this administration believes. Turning nearly a half-century of American foreign policy on its head in the literal final weeks of a Presidency is not competent leadership, but childish petulance.

Childish petulance, however, is Barack Obama’s legacy. His childish petulance, though he may never admit it, gave rise to Donald Trump, who is Obama’s ultimate legacy.

What Reagan Did When Iran Assaulted a Navy Ship

“They must know that we will protect our ships, and if they threaten us, they will pay a price.”

With those words, President Ronald Reagan justified his approval of Operation Praying Mantis, a day-long engagement in which U.S. Navy and Marine forces delivered a powerful response to the Iranian assault of the USS Samuel B. Roberts. A hidden Iranian mine had struck the frigate in the open waters of the Persian Gulf on April 14, 1988. No sailors died, but several were injured and the ship was severely damaged.

Operation Praying Mantis remains the largest surface battle engaged in by the U.S. Navy since World War II, and its outcome was decisive. According to official reports released afterward, using a combination of anti-ship missiles, naval gunfire, and aircraft launched from several ships, including the aircraft carrier the USS Enterprise, the Navy destroyed two oil platforms used by Iran for intelligence collection, sank 4 small Iranian Navy boats, sank an Iranian frigate, and severely damaged another Iranian warship.

But that was all on April 18, 1988. Back when the United States believed in delivering swift, decisive responses to enemy provocations.

Fast forward to January 12, 2016 and the Iranian military seized two U.S. Navy patrol boats and their crews when, from what we know, one of the boats had an engine failure while transiting the open waters of the Persian Gulf. The pair of tiny boats appear to have drifted close to an Iranian naval base on an island in the Gulf.

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 9.32.03 AM

After holding the sailors hostage, Iran returned them and their boats the following day.

Make no mistake, this was not a one-off incident in which Iran honestly felt threatened by the presence of two small boats designed for coastal and river operations. The guns on the pair of U.S. boats are completely inadequate for sinking a ship. This event was the next step in an escalation of incidents and provocations on the part of an Iranian regime interested in flexing its muscle in order to show the world that even the United States must at times bow to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In December, Iran fired a missile near – but not at – the USS Harry Truman, an aircraft carrier operating in the Gulf (video here).

The Obama Administration’s response to the capture of American service members was remarkably quiet. Unwilling to draw attention to the situation, President Barack Obama didn’t even mention the tense situation in his State of the Union Address to Congress, delivered just hours after the sailors were captured.

Early on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry praised Iran for releasing the imprisoned sailors so soon, offering this gem of insight:

“As a former Sailor myself, I know the importance of naval presence around the world and the critical work being done by our Navy in the Gulf region.”

According to one New York Times writer, who was no advocate of Republicans during the 2004 presidential election which saw Kerry unsuccessfully challenge President George W. Bush, Kerry wrote in 1986 that he volunteered to serve in the Navy during the Vietnam War because, “When I signed up for the Swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. I didn’t really want to get involved in the war.”

Kerry joined the Navy after he couldn’t secure another education deferment.

Republican presidential candidates shouldn’t throw around Reagan’s name, and claim his mantle, in an effort to avoid a substantive discussion of their own positions. But when it comes to the Iranian capture and release of American sailors, GOP presidential candidates would do well to remind American voters that there was a time when assaulting a U.S. Navy ship resulted in very, very grave consequences.

As it stands now, Iran can safely expect to face nothing more than verbal outrage in response to its actions.